I  LIBRARY  OF  PRlNCgON 


L 


THFOLOG1CAL  SEMINARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/leviticusorthird22gard 


LEVITICUS: 


OR, 


THE  THIRD  BOOK  OF  MOSES. 


/BY 

FREDERIC  GARDINER,  D.D., 

PROFESSOR   OF    THE    LITERATURE   AND    INTERPRETATION    OF    THE    OLD    TESATMENT 
IN   THE   BERKELEY   DIVINITY   SCHOOL,    MIDDLETOWN,  CONN. 

IN    WHICH    IS    INCORPORATED 

A  TRANSLATION  OF   THE  GREATER  PART   OF  THE  GERMAN 
COMMENTARY  ON   LEVITICUS, 

BY 

JOHN  PETER  LANGE,  D.  D., 

PROFESSOR    OF    THEOLOGY    IN    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    BONN. 


NEW    YORK: 
SCRIBNER,  ARMSTRONG    &   CO. 


LEVITICUS. 


THE  THIRD  BOOK  OF  MOSES. 

( N"lp*l ;    Aeutnxov ;    Leviticus. ) 


"  The  Book  of  the  Sacerdotal  Theocracy,  or  of  the  Priesthood  of  Israel,  to  set  forth  its  typical  Holiness." 
"The  religious  observances  by  which  God's  people  might  be  made  holy,  and  kept  holy." — Lange. 


INTRODUCTION. 

?  1.     NAME,  CONNECTION,   OBJECT,   AND  AUTHORSHIP. 

The  writings  of  Moses  have  reached  us  in  a  five-fold  division,  the  several  parts  of  which 
have  come  to  he  commonly  known  by  the  names  given  to  them  in  the  Septuagint  and  Vul- 
gate. In  the  Hebrew  the  whole  Pentateuch  is  divided,  as  one  book,  into  sections  [Parashi- 
yoth)  for  reading  in  the  synagogues  on  each  Sabbath  of  the  year,  and  the  several  books  are 
called  by  the  first  word  of  the  first  section  contained  in  them.  Thus  the  present  book  is 
N^p'2  =  and  he  called ;  it  is  also  called  by  the  Rabbins  in  the  Talmud  D"jrpn  fnto  =  Law 
of  the  Priests,  and  nij3lj^  rnin  130  =  Book  of  the  Law  of  offerings.  In  the  Septuagint  and 
Vulgate  this  central  book  of  the  Pentateuch  is  called  Aevtrutbv  (,3ifatov)  and  Leviticus  {liber) 
because  it  has  to  do  with  the  duties  of  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi.  The  Levites,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  priests,  are  mentioned  but  once,  and  that  incidentally,  in  the  whole  book 
(xxv.  32,  33). 

As  appears  from  the  Hebrew  name,  the  connection  of  this  book  with  the  one  immedi- 
ately preceding  is  very  close.  The  tabernacle  had  now  been  set  up,  and  its  sacred  furniture 
arranged  ;  the  book  of  Exodus  closes  with  the  mention  of  the  cloud  that  covered  it,  and  the 
Glory  of  the  Lord  with  which  it  was  filled.  Hitherto  the  Lord  had  spoken  from  the  cloud 
on  Sinai ;  now  His  presence  was  manifested  in  the  tabernacle  from  which  henceforth  He 
made  known  His  will.  It  is  just  at  this  point  that  Leviticus  is  divided  from  Exodus.  The 
same  Lord  still  speaks  to  the  same  people  through  the  same  mediator ;  but  He  had  before 
spoken  from  the  heights  of  Sinai,  while  now  He  speaks  from  the  sacred  tabernacle  pitched 
among  His  people.  At  the  close  Leviticus  is  also  closely  connected  with,  and  yet  distinctly 
separated  from,  the  book  of  Numbers.  It  embraces  substantially  the  remaining  legislation 
given  in  the  neighborhood  of  Sinai,  while  Numbers  opens  with  the  military  census  and  other 
matters  preparatory  to  the  march  of  the  Israelites  in  the  second  year  of  the  Exodus.  Yet  on 
the  eve  of  that  march  a  number  of  additional  commands  are  given  in  Numbers  intimately 
associating  the  two  books  together. 

The  wThole  period  between  the  setting  up  of  the  tabernacle  (Ex.  xl.  17)  and  the  final 
departure  from  Mt.  Sinai  (Num.  x.  11)  was  but  one  month  and  twenty  days.  Much  of  this 
was  occupied  by  the  events  recorded  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  Numbers,  especially  the  offer- 
ings of  the  princes  on  twelve  days  (Num.  vii.)  which  must  have  almost  immediately  followed 
the  consecration  of  the  priests  and  the  tabernacle  (Num.  vii.  1  with  Lev.  viii.  10, 11),  and  the 
celebration  of  the  second  Passover  (ix.  1-5)  occupying  seven  days,  and  begun  on  the  four- 
teenth day  of  the  first  month.  All  the  events  of  Leviticus  must  therefore  be  included  within 
less  than  the  space  of  one  month. 

1 


INTRODUCTION  TO  LEVITICUS. 


The  object  of  the  Book  is  apparent  from  its  contents  and  the  circumstances  under  which 
it  was  given,  especially  when  considered  in  connection  with  the  references  to  it  in  the  New 
Testament.  Jehovah,  having  now  established  the  manifestation  of  His  presence  among  His 
people,  directs  them  how  to  approach  Him.  Primarily,  this  has  reference,  of  course,  to  the 
then  existing  people,  under  their  then  existing  circumstances ;  but  as  ages  rolled  away,  and 
the  people  were  educated  to  higher  spiritual  capacity,  the  spiritual  meaning  of  these  direc- 
tions was  more  and  more  set  forth  by  the  prophets  ;  until  at  last,  when  the  true  Sacrifice  for 
sin  had  come,  the  typical  and  preparatory  character  of  these  arrangements  was  fully  declared. 
Lange  (Horn,  in  Lev.  General)  says  "  Leviticus  appears  to  be  the  most  peculiarly  Old  Tes- 
tament in  its  character  of  all  the  Old  Testament  books,  since  Christ  has  entirely  removed  all 
outward  sacrifices.  It  may  certainly  be  rightly  said  that  the  law  of  sacrifice,  or  the  ceremo- 
nial law  has  been  abrogated  by  Christianity.  But  if  the  law  in  general,  in  its  outward  his- 
torical and  literal  form  has  been  abrogated,  on  the  other  hand,  in  its  spiritual  sense,  it  has 
been  fulfilled  (Gal.  ii. ;  Eom.  iii. ;  Matt,  v.) ;  and  so  it  must  also  be  said  in  regard  to  the  law 
of  sacrifices.  The  sacrificial  law  in  its  idea  has  only  been  fully  realized  in  Christianity ;— in 
its  principle  fulfilled,  realized,  in  Christ,  to  be  realized  from  this  as  a  basis,  continually  in  the 
life  of  Christians."  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  the  character  of  the  sacrificial  system  in 
general,  and  particularly  of  that  part  of  it  contained  in  Leviticus,  is  clearly  set  forth  as  at 
once  imperfect  and  transitory  in  itself,  and  yet  typical  of,  and  preparatory  for,  "  the  good 
things  to  come."  A  flood  of  light  is  indeed  thrown  back  from  the  anti-type  upon  the  type, 
and  for  this  reason  the  Old  Testament  is  always  to  be  studied  in  connection  with  the  New ; 
yet  on  the  other  hand,  the  converse  is  also  true,  and  Leviticus  has  still  a  most  important 
purpose  for  the  Christian  Church  in  that  it  sets  forth,  albeit  in  type  and  shadow,  the  will  of 
an  unchangeable  God  in  regard  to  all  who  would  draw  nigh  to  Him.  Much  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  especially  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  can  only  be  fully  understood 
through  a  knowledge  of  Leviticus.  To  this  general  object  of  the  book  may  be  added  the 
special  purposes,  already  necessarily  involved,  of  preserving  the  Israelites  alike  from  idolatry 
by  the  multiform  peculiarity  of  their  ritual,  and  of  saving  them  from  indolence  in  their  wor- 
ship by  the  exacting  character  of  the  ceremonial.  The  Christian  Fathers,  as  Eusebius,  S3. 
Augustine,  Leo,  Cyril,  as  well  as  Origen  and  many  others,  speak  of  the  book  as  setting 
forth  in  types  and  shadows  the  sacrifice  of  Christ ;  while  many  of  them  also,  as  Tertullian. 
SS.  Clement,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  and  others,  speak  of  the  inferior  purpose  just  men- 
tioned. 

Of  the  authorship  of  this  book  there  is  little  need  to  speak,  because  there  is  really  no 
room  for  doubt.  This  is  not  the  place  to  combat  the  opinions  of  those  critics  who,  like  Ka- 
lisch,  hold  the  whole  Pentateuch  to  have  been  a  very  late  compilation  from  fragments  of 
various  dates,  and  the  Mosaic  system  to  have  been  one  of  gradual  human  development.  The 
portions  assigned  by  Knobel  to  another  author  than  the  "Elohist"  are  x.  16-20;  xvii.-xx.; 
xxiii.,  part  of  ver.  2  and  ver.  3,  vers.  18,  19,  22,  29-44;  xxiv.  10-23;  xxv.  18-22  ;  and  xxvl  ; 
but  the  reasons  given  "  are  too  transparently  unsatisfactory  to  need  serious  discussion." 
Generally,  it  may  be  said  that  even  those  critics  who  question  most  earnestly  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  some  other  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  are  agreed  that  Leviticus  must  have 
proceeded  substantially  from  Moses.  There  is  really  no  scope  in  this  book  for  the  Jehovistic 
and  Elohistic  controversy ;  for  although  Knobel  delights  to  point  out  the  distinct  portions 
by  each  writer,  yet  the  name  D'H^  never  occurs  in  Lev.  absolutely,  but  only  with  a  pos- 
sessive pronoun  marking  the  Deity  as  peculiarly  Israel's  God.  (It  is  however  once  used, 
xix.  4,  for  false  gods).  The  book  contains  every  possible  mark  of  contemporaneous  author- 
ship, and  there  are  constant  indications  of  its  having  been  written  during  the  life  in  the 
wilderness.  The  words  used  for  the  sanctuary  are  either  \3m  (4  times)  or  1#B  ^rix  (35 
times)  and  never  any  term  implying  a  more  permanent  structure.  For  the  dwellings  of  the 
people,  n'3  in  the  sense  of  a  house,  is  never  used  except  in  reference  to  the  future  habitation 
of  the  promised  land,  which  is  the  more  striking  because  it  occurs  thirty-seven  times  in  this 
sense,  and  in  all  of  them  with  express  reference  to  the  future,  except  xxvii.  14, 15,  where  this 
reference  is  implied;  "MM.  |tyn,  and  J1U  do  not  occur  at  all ;  7r)«  tent,  occurs  once,  while  the 


\  2.    UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  LEVITICUS. 


indefinite  word  3tfl0  is  found  eight  times ;  H3D,  which  is  neither  house  nor  tent,  but  booth, 
occurs  four  times  in  the  commands  connected  with  the  observance  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles, 
and  with  especial  reference  to  Israel's  having  dwelt  in  booths  at  their  first  coming  out  from 
Egypt  (xxiii.  43).  The  use  of  all  these  terms  is  thus  exactly  suited  to  the  wilderness  period, 
but  not  to  any  other.  The  use  of  wn  for  the  feminine,  so  frequently  changed  in  the  Sama- 
ritan to  N'H,  and  so  pointed  by  the  Masorets;  the  use  of  rnj,'  for  the  people,  so  common  in 
Ex.,  Lev.,  Num.,  and  Josh.,  and  so  infrequent  elsewhere ;  the  usual  designation  of  them  as 
the  children  of  Israel,  a  phrase  so  largely  exchanged  for  the  simple  Israel  in  later  writers ; 
and  many  other  marks  point  to  the  earliest  period  of  Hebrew  literature  as  the  time  of  the 
composition  of  this  book.  The  book  itself  repeatedly  claims  to  record  the  laws  which  were 
given  to  Moses  in  Mount  Sinai,  or  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  (vii.  38 ;  xxv.  1 ;  xxvi.  46 ;  xxvii. 
34),  and  in  one  instance  (xvi.  1),  the  time  is  sharply  defined  as  after  the  death  of  Aaron's 
two  sons,  and  sometimes  (xxi.  24;  xxiii.  44)  the  immediate  publication  of  the  laws  is  men- 
tioned. There  are  frequent  references  to  the  time  "  When  ye  be  come  into  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan "  as  yet  in  the  future  (xiv.  34 ;  xix.  23 ;  xxiii.  10) ;  and  laws  are  given  for  use  in  the 
wilderness,  as  e.  g.,  the  slaughter  of  all  animals  intended  for  food  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle 
as  sacrifices  (xvii.  1-6),  which  would  have  been  impossible  to  observe  when  the  life  in  the 
camp  was  exchanged  for  that  in  the  scattered  cities  of  Canaan,  and  which  was  actually  abro- 
gated on  the  eve  of  the  entrance  into  the  promised  land  (Deut.  xii.  15,  20-22).  In  this  abro- 
gation no  mention  is  made  of  the  previous  law,  but  its  existence  is  implied,  and  the  change 
is  based  on  the  distance  of  their  future  homes.  There  is  frequent  reference  in  the  laws  to  the 
"camp"  (iv.  12,  21 ;  vi.  11 ;  xiii.  46  ;  xiv.  3,  8  ;  xvi.  26,  27,  28),  so  that  in  after  times  it 
became  necessary  to  adopt  as  a  rule  of  interpretation  that  this  should  always  be  understood 
in  the  law  of  the  city  in  which  the  sanctuary  stood.  Throughout  the  book  Aaron  appears  as 
the  only  high-priest  (although  this  term  is  never  used)  and  provision  is  repeatedly  made  for 
his  son,  who  should  be  anointed,  and  should  minister  in  his  stead  ;  and  Aaron's  sons  appear 
as  the  only  priests.  The  Levites  have  not  yet  been  appointed,  nor  are  they  ever  mentioned 
except  in  one  passage  in  reference  to  their  cities  in  the  future  promised  land  (xxv.  32,  33). 
Not  to  dwell  further  upon  particulars,  it  may  be  said  in  a  word  that  we  have  here,  and  hero 
only,  the  full  sacrificial  and  priestly  system  which  is  recognized  as  existing  in  the  two  fol- 
lowing books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  all  subsequent  Hebrew  literature.  For  an  excellent 
summary  of  the  evidence,  see  Warrington's  "When  was  the  Pentateuch  written  ?"  (London: 
Christian  Evidence  Com.  of  Soc.  P.  C.  A'.). 

The  only  passage  presenting  any  real  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  date  of  the  book  is  xviii. 
28,  "  That  the  land  spue  not  you  out  also,  when  ye  defile  it,  as  it  spued  out  the  nations  that 
were  before  you."  For  the  true  sense  of  these  words,  see  the  commentary ;  but  even  taking 
it  as  it  stands  in  the  A.  V.,  and  supposing  the  whole  exhortation,  vers.  24-30,  to  have  been 
added  by  divine  direction  when  Moses  made  his  final  revision  of  the  work  on  the  plains  of 
Moab,  we  can  easily  understand  the  language.  Already,  the  conquest  of  the  trans-  Jordanic 
region  was  accomplished,  and  that  of  the  rest  of  the  land  was  to  be  immediately  entered  upon 
with  the  clearest  promise  of  success.  God  warns  the  people  through  Moses,  when  all  shall 
be  done,  not  to  follow  in  the  ways  of  the  Canaanites,  lest  they  also  themselves  suffer  as  their 
predecessors  had  suffered.  It  is  simply  a  case  of  the  Lord's  speaking  from  the  stand-point 
of  an  accomplished  work,  while  the  work  was  in  progress,  and  assuredly  soon  to  be  com- 
pleted. It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the  book  itself  the  claim  to  Mosaic  authorship  is  distinctly 
made  in  the  last  verse  of  chap,  xxvi.,  and  again  of  the  appendix,  chap,  xxvii.  (comp.  Num. 
xxxvi.  13). 

2  2.     UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF   LEVITICUS. 

The  Book  of  Leviticus  is  marked  on  the  surface  with  these  elements  of  unity :  it  is  all 
centred  in  the  newly-erected  tabernacle ;  and  only  a  few  weeks  passed  away  between  its  be- 
ginning and  its  close.  There  is  necessarily  much  variety  in  so  considerable  a  collection  of 
laws,  and  something  of  historical  narrative  in  connection  with  the  immediate  application  of 
those  laws ;  but  the  main  purpose  is  everywhere  apparent  and  controlling — the  arrangements 


INTRODUCTION  TO  LEVITICUS. 


whereby  a  sinful  people  may  approach,  and  remain  in  permanent  communion  with  a  holy 
God.  This  will  better  appear  in  the  following  table  of  contents.  The  arrangement  of  the 
book  is  as  systematic  as  the  nature  of  its  contents  allowed.  In  regard  to  one  or  two  alleged 
instances  of  repetition  (xi.  39,  40  compared  with  xxii.  8,  and  xix.  9  with  xxiii.  22)  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  say  that  they  were  intentional  (see  the  commentary) ;  and  in  regard  to  several 
chapters  supposed  to  be  placed  out  of  their  natural  connection,  (as  e.  g.,  chaps,  xii.  and  xv.,) 
it  simply  does  not  appear  that  the  thread  of  connection  in  the  mind  of  Moses  was  the  same 
as  in  that  of  the  critic.  In  fact,  in  the  instances  alleged,  the  great  Legislator  seems  to  have 
taken  especial  pains  to  break  that  connection  which  is  now  spoken  of  as  the  natural  one,  and 
has  thus,  for  important  reasons,  separated  the  purification  after  child-birth  from  all  other 
purifications  which  might  otherwise  have  seemed  to  be  of  the  same  character.  Such  points 
will  be  noticed  in  detail  in  the  commentary.  Nevertheless,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  Le- 
viticus was  given  at  Sinai  in  view  of  an  immediate  and  direct  march  to  Canaan,  which  should 
have  culminated  in  the  possession  of  the  promised  land.  When  this  had  been  prevented  in 
consequence  of  the  sin  of  the  people,  a  long  time — above  thirty-eight  years — passed  away 
before  the  encampment  on  the  plains  of  Moab.  During  this  period  the  law  was  largely  in 
abeyance,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  its  most  imperative  requirement,  circumcision,  was 
entirely  omitted  to  the  close  (Josh.  v.  5-8).  After  this  long  interval,  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  the  writings  of  Moses  would  have  been  revised  before  his  death,  and  such 
clauses  and  exhortations  added  as  the  changed  circumstances  might  require.  These  passages, 
however,  if  really  written  at  that  time,  so  far  from  being  in  any  degree  incongruous  with  the 
original  work,  do  but  fill  out  and  emphasize  its  teachings. 

The  contents  of  Leviticus  are  arranged  in  the  following  table  in  such  a  way  as  to  show 
something  of  the  connection  of  its  parts. 

BOOK   I.— Of  approach  to  God.    (Chaps.  I.— XVI.). 

First  Part.     (i. — vii.)    Laws  of  Sacrifice. 

1  1.    General  rules  for  the  Sacrifices,  (i. — vi.  7). 

A.  Burnt  offerings,  i. 

B.  Oblations  (Meat  offerings),  ii. 

C.  Peace  offerings,  iii. 

D.  Sin  offerings,  iv. — v.  13. 

E      Trespass  offerings,  v.  14 — vi.  7. 

\  2.    Special  instructions  chiefly  for  the  Priests,  vi.  8 — vii.  38. 

A.  For  Burnt  offerings,  vi.  8-13. 

B.  "    Oblations  (Meat  offerings),  vi.  14-23. 

C.  "     Sin  offerings,  vi.  24-30. 

D.  "     Trespass  offerings,  vii.  1-6. 

E        "    the  Priests'  portion  of  the  above,  vii.  7-10. 

F.  "     Peace  offerings  in  their  variety,  vii.  11-21. 

G.  "     the  Fat  and  the  Blood,  vii.  22-27. 

H.      "     the  priests'  portion  of  peace  offerings,  vii.  28-36. 
Conclusion  of  this  Section,  vii.  37,  38. 

Second  Part.    Historical,     (viii. — x.). 
\  1.    The  Consecration  of  the  Priests,  viii. 
?  2.    Entrance  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  on  their  office,  ix. 

2  3.    The  sin  and  punishment  of  Nadab  and  Abihu.  x. 


\  3.    THE  RELATION  OF  THE  LEVITICAL  CODE  TO  HEATHEN  USAGES.  fi 

Thikd  Part.    The  Laws  of  Purity,     (xi. — xv.). 
\  1.    Laws  of  clean  and  unclean  food.  xi. 
§  2.    Laws  of  purification  after  child-birth,  xii. 
I  3.    Laws  concerning  Leprosy,  (xiii.,  xiv.). 

A.  Examination  and  its  result,  xiii.  1-46. 

B.  Leprosy  in  clothing  and  leather,  xiii.  47-59. 

C.  Cleansing  and  restoration  of  a  Leper,  xiv.  1-32. 

D.  Leprosy  in  a  house,  xiv.  33-53. 
B.     Conclusion,  xiv.  54-57. 

?  4.    Sexual  impurities  and  cleansings.  xv. 

Fourth  Part.    The  Day  of  Atonement,  xvi. 

BOOK  II. — Of  continuance  in  communion  with  God.     (Chaps.  XVII. — XXVI.). 

First  Part.     Holiness  on  the  part  of  the  people,  (xvii. — xx.). 
I  1 .    Holiness  in  regard  to  Food.  xvii. 
I  2.    Holiness  of  the  Marriage  relation,  xviii. 

1  3.    Holiness  of  Conduct  towards  God  and  man.  xix. 
*  4.    Punishment  for  Unholiness.  xx. 

Second  Part.    Holiness  on  the  part  of  the  Priests,  and  holiness  of  the 
Offerings,  xxi.,  xxii. 

Third  Part.    Sanctification  of  Feasts,  (xxiii. — xxv.). 

2  1.    Of  the  Sabbaths  and  Annual  Feasts,  xxiii. 

I  2.    Of  the  Holy  lamps  and  Shew-bread.  xxiv.  1-9. 

§  3.    Historical.     The  punishment  of  a  Blasphemer,  xxiv.  10-23. 

§  4.    Of  the  Sabbatical  and  Jubilee  years,  xxv. 

Fourth  Part.    Conclusion.    Promises  and  Threats,  xxvi. 
Appendix.    Of  vows,  xxxvii. 

I   3.    THE   RELATION  OF  THE  LEVITICAL  CODE  TO  HEATHEN  USAGES. 

Widely  divergent  views  have  been  held  by  different  writers  upon  this  subject.  Spencer 
(De  legibus  Hebrceorum)  was  disposed  to  find  an  Egyptian  origin  for  almost  every  Mosaic  in- 
stitution. Baehr  (Symbolik  des  Mosauchen  Cultus)  has  sought  to  disprove  all  connection 
between  them.  The  a  priori  probability  seems  well  expressed  by  Marsham  (in  Can.  chron. 
(Egypt-,  P-  154,  ed.  Leips.)  as  quoted  by  Rosenmueller  [Pre/,  in  Lev.,  p.  5,  note).  "We 
know  from  Scripture  that  the  Hebrews  were  for  a  long  time  inhabitants  of  Egypt ;  and  we 
may  suspect,  not  without  reason,  that  they  did  not  wholly  cast  off  Egyptian  usages,  but 
rather  that  some  traces  of  Egyptian  habit  remained.  Many  laws  of  Moses  are  from  ancient 
customs.  Whatever  hindered  the  cultus  of  the  true  Deity,  he  strictly  forbade.  Moses  abro- 
gated most  of  the  Egyptian  rites,  some  he  changed,  some  he  held  as  indifferent,  some  he  per- 
mitted, and  even  commanded."  Yet  this  legislation  by  its  many  additions  and  omissions, 
and  the  general  remoulding  of  all  that  remained  became,  as  Eosenmueller  also  remarks, 
peculiarly  and  distinctively  Hebrew,  adapted  to  their  needs,  and  sharply  separating  them 
from  all  other  people. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  LEVITICUS. 


It  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to  speak  of  what  the  Mosaic  law  taught  in  common  with 
the  customs  of  all  people  at  this  period  of  the  world's  history.  The  aim  of  the  law  was  to 
elevate  the  Israelites  to  a  higher  and  better  standard,  but  gently,  and  as  they  were  able  to 
bear  it.  Certain  essential  laws  were  given,  and  these  were  insisted  upon  absolutely  and  with 
every  varied  form  of  command  which  could  add  to  the  emphasis.  The  unity  of  God,  and 
His  omnipotence,  were  taught  with  a  distinctness  which  was  fast  fading  out  from  the  world's 
recollection,  and  which  we  scarcely  find  elsewhere  at  this  period,  except  in  the  book  of  Job, 
which  may  itself  have  been  modified  in  Mosaic  hands.  So,  too,  the  necessity  of  outward  sacra- 
mental observances  for  the  whole  people,  whereby  communion  with  God  through  His  Church 
should  be  maintained,  were  strongly  insisted  upon,  as  in  circumcision  and  the  Passover,  and 
other  sacrifices.  But  when  we  come  to  consider  the  conduct  of  the  ordinary  life,  we  find  the 
universally  received  customs  of  the  times  not  abrogated,  but  only  restrained  and  checked 
according  to  the  capacity  of  the  people.  All  these  checks  and  restraints  were  in  the  direction 
of  and  looking  towards,  the  higher  standard  of  the  morality  of  the  Gospel,  as  may  be  seen  in 
the  law  of  revenge,  where  unlimited  vengeance  was  restricted  to  a  return  simply  equal  to  the 
injury  received;  in  the  laws  of  marriage,  which  imposed  many  restrictions  on  the  freedom 
of  divorce  and  of  polygamy ;  in  the  laws  of  slavery,  which  so  greatly  mitigated  the  hardships 
of  that  condition.  But  in  these,  as  in  many  other  matters,  their  Heavenly  Father  dealt 
tenderly  with  His  people,  and  "for  the  hardness  of  their  hearts"  suffered  many  things  which 
were  yet  contrary  to  His  will. 

The  same  general  principles  apply  to  the  retention  among  them  of  very  much  of  Egyp- 
tian custom  and  law.  It  is  more  important  to  speak  of  these  because  the  Israelites  lived  so 
long  and  in  such  close  contact  with  the  Egyptians  from  the  very  time  of  their  beginning  to 
multiply  into  a  nation  until  the  eve  of  the  promulgation  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation.  Par- 
ticular points  in  which  this  legislation  was  adapted  to  the  already  acquired  habits  and  ideas 
of  the  people,  will  be  noticed  in  the  commentary  as  occasion  requires.  It  is  only  necessary 
here  to  point  out  on  the  one  hand  how  apparent  lacuna  in  the  Mosaic  teaching  may  thus  be 
explained,  and  on  the  other,  how  largely  the  Egyptian  cultus  itself  had  already  been  modified, 
in  all  probability,  by  the  influence  of  the  fathers  of  the  Jewish  people.  By  consideration  of 
the  former  it  is  seen,  e.  g,,  why  so  little  should  have  been  said  in  the  Mosaic  writings  of 
immortality  and  the  future  life.  This  doctrine  was  deeply  engraven  in  the  Egyptian  mind, 
and  interwoven  as  a  fundamental  principle  with  their  whole  theology  and  worship.  It  passed 
on  to  the  Israelites  as  one  of  those  elementary  truths  so  universally  received  that  it  needed 
not  to  be  dwelt  upon.  The  latter  is  necessarily  involved  in  more  obscurity ;  but  when  we 
consider  the  terms  on  which  Abraham  was  received  by  the  monarch  of  Egypt ;  the  position 
occupied  at  a  later  date  by  Jacob  ;  the  rank  of  Joseph,  and  his  intermarriage  with  the  high- 
priestly  family ;  and  remember  at  the  same  time  that  the  priesthood  of  Egypt  was  still  in 
possession  of  a  higher  and  purer  secret  theology  than  was  communicated  to  the  people— we 
see  how  Israel  could  have  accepted  from  the  land  of  the  Pharaohs  an  extent  of  customs,  (to 
be  purified,  modified,  and  toned  by  their  own  Sinaitic  legislation)  which  it  might  have  been 
dangerous  to  receive  from  any  other  people.  Yet  plainly,  whatever  of  detail  may  have  been 
adopted  from  Egyptian  sources,  it  was  so  connected  and  correlated  in  the  Mosaic  legislation 
that  the  whole  spirit  of  the  two  systems  became  totally  unlike. 

§  4.     LITERATURE. 

The  ancient  versions  are  of  great  value  in  the  interpretation  of  the  technical  language 
of  the  law.  The  Samaritan  text  and  version  (which  however  sometimes  betray  a  want  of 
familiarity  in  detail  with  the  ritual  as  practised  at  Jerusalem)  often  give  valuable  readings; 
bo  also  the  Septuagint,  the  Chaldee  Targums,  and  of  later  date,  the  Syriac  and  the  Vulgate. 

The  New  Testament,  especially  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  supplies  to  a  large  extent  an 
inspired  commentary  upon  Leviticus.  The  various  treatises  of  Philo,  and  the  antiquities  of 
Josephus,  give  also  fully  the  ancient  explanations  of  many  single  passages  and  views  of 
larger  sections. 

Since  their  time  the  literature  of  Leviticus  is  voluminous,  consisting  of  commentaries, 


\  4.    LITERATURE. 


of  special  treatises  upon  the  subjects  with  which  it  is  occupied,  and  of  archaeological  investi- 
gations illustrating  it.  Of  special  treatises  sufficient  mention  will  be  made  in  connection 
with  the  subjects  to  which  they  relate,  and  it  is  unnecessary  here  to  particularize  works  of 
archaeology.  Of  commentaries  the  following  are  those  which  have  been  chiefly  used  in  the 
preparation  of  the  present  work  :  Origen  :  Selecta  in  Lev.  and  Horn,  in  Lev.  Theodoret, 
Qucest.  in  Lev.  Augustine,  Quoest.  in  Lev.  Biblia  Max.  versionum,  containing  the  annota- 
tions of  Nicolas  de  Lyra,  Tirinus,  Menochius,  and  Estius,  Paris,  1660.  Calvin, 
in  Pentateuchum.  Critici  Sacri,  London,  1660.  Poli,  Sytwpsi*,  London,  16S9.  Michaelis, 
Bibl.  Hebr.,  Halle,  1720.  Calmet,  Wircesburgii,  1789.  Patrick,  London,  1842,  and  freq. 
Kosenmueller,  Leipsic,  1824.  Of  more  recent  date,  Knobel  (of  especial  value),  Leipsic, 
1858.  Boothroyd,  Bibl.  Hebr.,  Pontefract  (no  date).  Barrett's  Synopsis  of  Criticisms. 
London,  1847.  Kalisch,  Leviticus,  London,  1872.  Otto  von  Gf.rlach  on  the  Pentateuch, 
translated  by  Downing,  London,  1860.  Wordsworth,  London,  1865.  Keil  and  De- 
LITZSCH  on  the  Pentateuch;  (Keil),  translated  by  Martin,  Edinburgh,  1S66.  Murphy 
on  Leviticus,  Am.  Ed.,  Andover,  1872.  Clark,  in  the  Speaker's  Commentary,  New  York, 
1872.  Girdlestone,  Synonyms  of  the  Old  Testament,  London,  187L  To  which  must  be 
added,  as  containing  much  of  commentary  on  large  portions  of  this  book,  Baehr,  Symbolik 
des  Mosaischen  Cultus,  Heidelberg,  1837-39,  Ite  Auflage,  Erster  Band,  Heidelberg,  1874. 
Outram  on  Sacrifices,  translated  by  Allen,  London,  1817.  Hengstenberg,  Die  Opfer 
des  he'd.  Schrift,  Berlin,  1839.  Kurtz  on  Sacrifice,  Mitau,  1864.  Hermann  Schultz, 
Alttestamentliche  Theologie,  Frankfurt  a  M.,  1869,  2  vols.  OZhler,  Theologie  des  Alien  Testa- 
ments, 2  vols.,  Tubingen,  1873-74  (a  translation  is  in  the  press  of  T.  &T.  Clark).  Of  Lange's 
own  commentary  (1874)  as  much  as  possible,  and  it  is  believed  everything  of  importance,  has 
been  introduced  into  this  work,  which  was  already  well  advanced  before  its  publication.  Such 
portions  are  always  distinctly  marked.  In  several  of  the  chapters  his  commentary  is  given 
in  full;  in  others,  nearly  so. 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  LEVITICAL  SACRIFICES. 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  LEVITICAL  SACRIFICES. 


Leviticus  properly  opens  with  the  law  of  sacrifice,  because  this  was  the  centre  and  basis 
of  the  Divine  service  in  the  newly-erected  tabernacle.  But  since  sacrifices  have  to  do  with 
the  relations  of  man  to  God,  they  can  only  satisfactorily  be  considered  in  connection  with 
the  established  facts  of  those  relations.  Of  these  facts  three  are  fundamental :  the  original 
condition  of  man  in  a  state  of  holiness  and  of  communion  with  God ;  the  fall,  by  which  he 
became  sinful,  and  thus  alienated  from  God  ;  and  the  promise,  given  at  the  very  moment  of 
man's  passing  from  the  one  state  to  the  other.  The  promise  was  that  in  the  future  the  wo- 
man's Seed  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head — that  in  the  long  struggle  between  man  and  the 
power  of  evil,  one  born  of  woman  should  obtain  the  final  victory.  This  promise  was  ever 
cherished  by  the  devout  in  all  the  following  ages  as  the  anchor  of  their  hope,  and  its  realiza- 
tion, as  seen  at  the  birth  of  Cain  and  of  Noah,  was  continually  looked  for.  The  expectation 
of  a  Deliverer,  Redeemer,  Messiah,  became  the  common  heritage  of  humanity,  although  as 
time  rolled  away,  it  tended  to  become  faint  and  obscure.  Therefore  there  came  the  call  in 
Abraham  of  a  peculiar  people,  in  whom  this  hope  should  not  only  be  kept  alive,  but,  as  far 
as  possible,  saved  from  distortion  and  misconception.  It  was  distinctly  the  blessing  of  Abra- 
ham's call,  the  birthright  renewed  to  his  son  and  grandson,  and  the  reason  for  the  choice  and 
the  care  of  a  peculiar  people. 

From  the  circumstances  under  which  this  promise  was  given,  and  the  way  in  which  it  is 
constantly  treated  in  Revelation,  it  is  plain  that  the  restoration  of  man  to  full  communion 
with  God  could  only  be  brought  about  by  the  restoration  of  man's  holiness;  it  was  only  in 
obedience  to  the  Divine  will  that  man  could  obtain  at-one-ment  with  his  Maker.  This  might 
seem  to  be  sufficiently  plain  as  a  truth  of  natural  religion,  but  it  was  also  abundantly  taught 
in  history  arid  in  Scripture.  Not  only  was  it  shown  by  the  great  judgments  upon  transgres- 
sion in  the  deluge,  in  Babel,  in  the  overthrow  of  Sodom,  etc.,  but  constantly  the  relative  and 
partial  attainment  of  holiness,  as  in  the  case  of  Enoch,  Noah,  and  others,  was  made  the 
ground  of  a  relatively  larger  bestowal  of  the  Divine  favor.  Abraham's  acceptance  was  ex- 
pressly grounded  upon  his  faith — necessarily  including  those  works  without  which  faith  is 
dead— and  so  with  the  other  heroes  recounted  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Hebrews.  Later, 
Moses  in  his  parting  exhortations  in  Deuteronomy,  constantly  and  strongly  urges  the  neces- 
sity of  a  loving  obedience  springing  from  the  heart,  and  this  is  more  and  more  fully  unfolded 
by  the  prophets  from  Samuel  down,  as  the  people  were  able  to  bear  it. 

Meantime  from  the  first,  in  the  case  of  Cain  and  Abel,  and  probably  still  earlier,  and 
then  among  all  nations  as  they  arose,  sacrifices  were  resorted  to  as  a  means  of  approach  to 
God.  From  their  universality,  it  is  plain  that  they  were  looked  upon  as  in  some  way  helping 
to  briDg  about  that  restoration  of  communion  with  God  which  should  have  been  reached  by 
a  perfect  holiness ;  but  since  man  was  conscious  he  did  not  possess  this  holiness,  sacrifices 
were  resorted  to.  As  they  never  could  have  been  offered  by  a  sinless  being,  they  necessarily 
involve  confession  of  sin.  Whether  sacrifice  in  its  origin  was  a  Divine  institution,  or  whether 
it  sprang  from  a  human  consciousness  of  its  propriety,  is  here  immaterial.  Lange  takes  the 
latter  view.  It  speedily  received  the  Divine  sanction  and  command.  Theoretically  the  sa- 
crifice could  have  had  no  intrinsic  value  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  The  author  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  (ix.  13;  x.  4)  has  abundantly  shown  that  while  sacrifices  might  have  in 
themselves  a  certain  absolute  value  for  purposes  of  ceremonial  purification,  there  was  yet  no 

16 


10  LEVITICUS. 


congruity  or  correlation  between  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  and  the  removal  of  human  sin. 
Hence,  theoretically  also,  sacrifices,  while  they  received  the  Divine  approbation,  must  have 
been  a  temporary  institution,  in  some  way  useful  to  man  for  the  time  being,  but  looking  for- 
ward to  the  true  atonement  by  the  victory  of  the  woman's  Seed  over  evil.  Thus  sacrifices 
are  in  their  very  nature  typical ;  having  little  force  in  themselves,  and  yet  appointed  for  the 
accomplishment  of  a  result  which  can  only  be  truly  attained  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  primeval 
promise.  How  far  this  true  nature  of  sacrifices  may  have  been  more  or  less  dimly  perceived 
by  man  from  the  outset,  it  is  not  necessary  here  to  inquire.  It  is  obvious  that  from  this  point 
of  view  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  sacrifices  was  entirely  a  secondary  matter ;  their  whole 
efficacy  resulted  from  the  Divine  appointment  or  approbation  of  them. 

The  tendency  of  man  apart  from  Eevelation  to  corruption  in  his  ideas  of  God  and  of  the 
means  of  approaching  Him  is  nowhere  more  marked  than  in  regard  to  sacrifice.  The  gods 
of  the  heathen  were,  for  the  most  part,  deifications  of  nature  or  her  powers ;  they  represented 
natural  forces,  and  instead  of  originating  are  themselves  governed  by  natural  laws.  This  is 
true,  whether  their  creed  were  polytheistic,  as  that  of  the  Greeks  and  Komans,  or  pantheistic, 
as  that  of  Buddhism.  In  Hebrew  law,  on  the  other  hand,  God  appears  "  as  the  Creator  and 
omnipotent  Ruler  of  the  universe,  a  personal  Lord  of  an  impersonal  world,  totally  distinct 
from  it  in  essence,  and  absolutely  swaying  it  according  to  His  will;  but  also  the  merciful 
Father  of  mankind."  "Therefore  the  sacrifices  of  the  Hebrews  have  a  moral  or  ethical, 
those  of  other  nations  a  purely  cosmical  or  physical  character ;  the  former  tend  to  work  upon 
mind  and  soul,  the  latter  upon  fears  and  interests;  the  one  strives  to  elevate  the  offerer  to 
the  sanctity  of  God,  the  other  to  lower  the  gods  to  the  narrowness  and  selfishness  of  man." 
Kalisch.  Moreover,  among  the  heathen,  God  was  regarded  as  alienated,  and  to  be  propi- 
tiated in  such  ways  as  man  could  devise  ;  sacrifices  were  considered  as  having  a  certain  satis- 
fying power  in  themselves,  as  in  some  sort  a  quid  pro  quo,  and  as  an  opus  operatum,  inde- 
pendent of  the  moral  life  of  the  offerer.  Hence  as  the  occasion  rose  in  importance,  the  value 
of  the  sacrifice  was  increased  even  to  the  extent  of  sometimes  using  human  victims.  Among 
the  Israelites,  sacrifices  were  known  to  be  of  God's  own  appointment  as  a  means  of  approach 
to  Him.  They  had  a  shadow,  indeed,  of  the  heathen  character,  as  offering  actual  compensa- 
tions for  certain  offences  against  the  theocratic  state,  but  this  was  very  secondary.  Their 
main  object  was  to  bridge  over  the  gulf  between  sinful  man  and  a  holy  God.  Although  the 
law  of  sacrifices  necessarily  stands  by  itself,  yet  the  same  Legislator  everywhere  insists  upon 
the  necessity  of  a  loving  obedience  to  God.  Hence,  however  costly  sacrifices  might  be  allowed, 
and  even  encouraged  as  Free-will,  and  Peace,  and  Thank-offerings,  and  more  numerous  vic- 
tims were  required  at  the  festivals  and  on  other  occasions  for  burnt-offerings,  the  Sin-offering 
must  (except  in  certain  specially  defined  cases)  be  of  the  commonest  and  cheapest  of  the 
domestic  animals,  and  even  this  always,  as  nearly  as  might  be,  of  a  uniform  value.  There 
was  no  gradation  in  the  value  of  the  offering  in  proportion  to  the  heinousness  of  the  offence ; 
the  atonement  for  all  sins,  whatever  the  degree  of  their  gravity,  was  the  same.  Even  the 
morning  and  evening  sacrifice  for  the  whole  people  which,  although  not  strictly  a  sin-offering, 
yet  had  a  somewhat  propitiatory  character,  was  still  the  single  lamb.  By  this  the  typical 
nature  of  sacrifice  as  a  temporary  and,  in  itself,  ineffectual  means,  was  strongly  expressed. 

That  the  ancients  had  the  idea  of  sin  as  a  moral  offence  against  God,  has  indeed  been 
called  in  question ;  but  seems  too  certain,  at  least  among  the  Egyptians,  the  Hindoos,  and 
the  Israelites,  to  require  proof.  It  is  abundantly  expressed  in  the  book  of  Job.  It  may  be 
well,  however,  to  point  out  some  of  the  heads  of  the  evidence  that  sacrifice  was  regarded  as  a 
propitiation  for  such  sin,  i.  e.,  as  a  means  for  obtaining  the  Divine  pardon  for  its  guilt.  Pro- 
minent in  this  evidence  is  the  fact  just  mentioned,  that  there  was  no  proportion  between  the 
offence  and  the  value  of  the  sacrifice;  since  the  idea  of  compensation  was  thus  excluded,  it 
remains  that  what  was  sought  for  was  forgiveness.  Calvin  (in  Lev.  i.)  justly  remarks  that 
the  idea  of  reconciliation  with  God  was  connected  under  the  old  dispensation  with  sacrifice 
after  a  sacramental  fashion,  as  with  baptism  now.  Historically,  this  idea  of  sacrifice  as  a 
means  of  obtaining  forgiveness  is  clearly  brought  out  in  the  sacrifices  of  Job,  both  for  his 
children  in  the  time  of  his  prosperity  (Job  i.  5),  and  for  his  friends  after  his  affliction  (xlii. 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  LEVITICAL  SACRIFICES.  11 

8).  Tholuck,  following  Scholl,  has  shown  (Diss.  II.,  App.  Ep.  Hebr.)  that  the  idea  of 
such  propitiation  was  prevalent  throughout  all  antiquity ;  that  clean  animals  were  changed 
in  their  status  on  the  express  ground  of  their  being  "a  sin-offering,"  "an  atonement/'  so 
that  the  parts  of  them  not  consumed  upon  the  altar  might  be  eaten  only  by  the  priests,  and 
their  remains  must  be  burned,  or  else  the  whole  burned,  without  the  camp  (Ex.  xxix.  14; 
Lev.  iv.  11,  12,  21 ;  vi.  30  ;  xvi.  27,  28,  etc.) ;  that  the  idea  is  distinctly  brought  out  in  Lev. 
xvii.  11,  and  in  parallel  passages.  "  The  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood :  and  I  have  given  it 
to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls;''  that  in  the  case  of  a  murder  by 
unknown  hands  (Deut.  xxi.  9)  the  guilt  of  the  crime  must  rest  upon  the  whole  neighborhood 
until  the  people  had  symbolically  transferred  that  guilt  to  a  victim,  and  this  had  been 
offered  in  sacrifice;  and  finally,  that  the  ritual  of  the  day  of  atonement  necessarily  involves 
this  idea.  (See  on  chap,  xvi.)  "  The  notion  of  internal  atonement ....  formed  a  distinctive 
feature  of  the  theology  of  the  Pentateuch."  Kalisch,  I.  p.  161. 

On  passing  from  these  more  general  considerations  to  the  particular  system  of  the  Levi- 
tical  sacrifices,  it  needs  to  be  constantly  borne  in  mind  that  these,  far  from  being  a  new 
institution,  were  in  fact  a  special  arrangement  and  systematizing  of  one  of  the  most  ancient 
institutions  known  to  man.  The  change  from  the  one  to  the  other  was  strictly  parallel  to 
the  course  of  divine  operations  in  nature.  The  earlier  is  ever  the  more  general  and  compre- 
hensive; the  later  the  more  specialized  both  in  structure  and  functions.  At  the  same  time 
the  law  was  not  merely  an  evolution,  a  normal  development  of  Divine  teaching  previously 
received,  but  it  was  distinctly  "  added  because  of  transgressions  until  the  promised  seed 
should  come."  We  must  therefore  be  prepared  to  find  in  it  especial  safeguards  for  the 
chosen  people  against  those  misconceptions  which  became  common  among  the  heathen,  and 
also  a  constant  relation  to  its  final  cause  and  its  terminus  when  "the  Seed  should  come." 

It  will  help  materially  to  a  clear  idea  of  the  Mosaic  sacrificial  system  if  we  examine  the 
various  words  used  for  sacrifice  before  and  under  the  law,  having  regard  also  to  the  subse- 
quent usage  of  the  same  words  and  to  their  various  translations  in  the  ancient  versions. 

The  earliest  word  that  occurs  is  also  the  most  general  in  its  original  sense,  though  under 
the  law  it  acquires  a  strictly  technical  signification :  nm-?,  given  by  the  lexicographers  as 
from  a  root  not  used,  nn=nn=/o  distribute,  to  deliver,  and  hence  to  make  a  present  of,  to 
give.  In  the  LXX.it  is"  translated  before  the  law  only  by  the  words  tupov  (Gen.  iv.  4; 
xxxii.  13,  18,  20,  21,  etc.)  and  Bvcia  (Gen.  iv.  3,  5  only) ;  in  the  law,  where  it  occurs  very  fre- 
quently, only  by  Ovaia  or  by  the  combination  dapov  dvaia,  and  this  is  the  case  also  in  Ezekiel 
(although  twice,  Lev.  ii.  13 ;  Num.  xviii.  9,  the  form  is  Bvoiaapa),  except  in  the  single  in- 
stance of  acuidalic,  Lev.  ix.  4.  After  the  books  of  the  law  both  these  translations  are  fre- 
quently employed,  and  also  xpoa<popa  once  (Ps.  xxxix.  9),  ?tvun>  three  times,  and  frequently 
the  Hebrew  word  is  simply  expressed  in  Greek  letters  pavai.  The  Vulg.  translates  by  mu- 
nus,  munusculum,  oblatio,  oblatio  sacrificii,  and  sacrificium;  but  in  the  law  oblatio  and  sacri- 
ficium  are  the  terms  commonly  employed.  In  the  A.  V.  meat-offering,  or  simply  offering,  is 
the  only  translation  in  Ex.,  Lev.,  Num.  and  Ezek.;  but  present,  gift,  sacrifice  and  oblation 
are  used  elsewhere  as  well  as  these,  usually  according  to  the  sense  implied  by  the  context. 
The  word  is  used  outside  of  the  law  in  the  general  sense  of  a  propitiatory  gift  or  tribute  to 
any  one,  and  hence  of  such  a  gift  to  God,  or  sacrifice  in  its  most  general  sense.  It  is  used 
of  the  offerings  of  both  Cain  and  Abel,  the  one  unbloody,  the  other  bloody.  In  the  prophets 
it  is  used  as  a  word  for  sacrifice  in  general.  It  is  used  frequently  in  the  historical  books  of 
gifts  or  tribute  from  man  to  man  as  from  Jacob  to  Esau,  to  Joseph  in  Egypt,  of  the  Moab- 
itea  and  Syrians  to  David,  and  distinctly  of  tribute,  2  Kings  xvii.  3,  4,  etc.  In  the  law  (Ex., 
Lev.,  Num.,  to  which  must  be  added  Ezek.)  it  has  a  strictly  defined  technical  signification, 
and  is  applied  only  to  the  oblation  (A.  V.  meat-offering)  except  in  Num.  v.,  where  it  is  used 
(six  times)  of  the  unbloody  jealousy-offering  of  barley.  It  is  always  therefore  in  the  law  a 
bloodless  offering,  and  being  nearly  always  an  accompaniment  of  a  bloody  offering,  may  be 
regarded  in  its  original  sense  of  a  gift  to  God,  offered  along  with  a  sacrifice  more  strictly  so 
called.  In  the  few  instances  in  which  it  stands  alone  it  never  appears  as  offered  for  the  pur- 
pose of  atonement.    In  the  case  of  the  sin-offering  of  flour  allowed  in  extreme  poverty  (Lev. 


12  LEVITICUS. 


v.  11-13)  this  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the  finjlp  in  that  the  remainder  should  belong 
to  the  priest,  nmSS. 

The  word  which  comes  next  in  the  order  of  the  record  is  Tnjt,  derived  from  nSp,  to 
ascend,  to  glow,  to  burn.  It  means  uniformly  throughout  the  Old  Testament :  the  whole 
burnt-sacrifice,  so  specifically  indeed  that  twice  (Deut.  xxxiii.  10;  Ps.  li.  19  [21])  r;3= 
whole  is  substituted  for  it.  In  a  few  cases  it  is  variously  translated  by  the  LXX.  (once  each 
aSmia,  av&^ams,  avatpnpa,  six  times  Ovaia,  thirteen  times  aapTvufia,  three  times  KapiTaatc),  but  in 
the  vast  majority  of  cases  by  some  term  signifying  the  holocaust,  62.omp-upa  (three  times), 
62.0Kuo7raai£  (eleven  times),  oloKavTu/ia  (most  frequently),  6?.oKavTaate  (seventy-three  times). 
In  the  Vulg.  the  only  renderings  are  holocaustum  (seldom  holoeautoma)  and  hostia,  except  a 
very  few  times  oblalio ;  in  the  A.  V.,  always  either  burnt-offering  or  burnt-sacrifice,  which 
are  used  interchangeably,  and  seem  to  have  been  intended  to  convey  the  same  meaning.  It 
is  first  used  in  Gen.  viii.  20  for  the  sacrifices  offered  by  Noah,  and  throughout  Gen.  xxii.  It 
is  also  used  three  times  in  Exodus  (x.  25 ;  xviii.  12 ;  xxiv.  5)  in  relation  to  sacrifices  previous 
to  those  of  the  Levitical  system.  In  the  law  itself  it  occurs  very  frequently,  and  also  in  the 
subsequent  books.  It  constitutes  the  daily  morning  and  evening  sacrifice  for  the  congrega- 
tion. It  was  always  an  animal  sacrifice  and  was  wholly  consumed,  except  the  skin,  upon 
the  altar.  In  signification  it  was  the  most  general  of  all  the  sacrifices,  and  in  fact  was  the 
only  unspecialized  bloody  sacrifice  of  the  law.  It  must  be  regarded  therefore  as  including 
within  itself,  more  or  less  distinctly,  the  idea  of  all  other  sacrifices;  it  was  a  means  of  ap- 
proach to  God  in  every  way  in  which  that  approach  could  be  expressed.  It  was  not  dis- 
tinctly a  sin-offering ;  yet  the  fact  that  it  should  be  accepted  for  the  offerer  "  to  make  atone- 
ment for  him  "  p?.?"?,  Lev.  i.  4)  is  prominent  in  its  ritual,  and  the  same  idea  is  distinctly 
brought  out  in  the  (probably  earlier)  sacrifices  of  Job  (Job  i.  5;  xlii.  8).  There  is  a  rabbin- 
ical maxim:  "the  burnt-offering  expiates  the  transgressions  of  Israel,"  and  this  idea  is  fully 
expressed  in  the  Targums.  "The  burnt-offering,  as  it  is  the  most  ancient,  so  also  is  it  the 
most  general  and  important  in  the  Mosaic  cultus,  apiary  d'eanv  >/  d?.6navrog  (Philo  de  vict.,  p. 
838)."  Tholuck  (Diss.  II.  in  Hebr.).  Yet  Tholtjck  afterwards  separates  this  sacrifice 
quite  too  absolutely  from  the  sin-offering.  The  latter  indeed,  as  specializing  one  feature  of 
the  burnt-offering,  had  a  different  ritual,  and  was  without  the  oblation;  as  offered  only  for 
the  expiation  of  sin,  it  carried  with  it  to  those  who  bore  its  unconsumed  flesh  a  defilement 
which  could  not  attach^to  the  burnt- offering,  since  this  included  other  ideas  also  within 
itself.  But  all  this  by  no  means  forbids  that  in  its  general,  comprehensive  character,  the 
burnt-offering  should  include  the  idea  of  expiation  for  sin  which  is  distinctly  attached  to  it 
in  the  law.  It  was  often  offered  also  as  a  praise  or  thank-offering  (2  Sam.  vi.  17,  etc.).  As 
already  said,  it  was  the  one  comprehensive  sacrifice  daily  offered  upon  the  altar  of  the  taber- 
nacle (Ex.  xxix.  38-42) ;  it  was  doubled  on  the  Sabbath  (Num.  xxviii.  9,  10),  and  multi- 
plied, with  added  victims  of  higher  value,  on  the  first  of  each  month  [ib.  11) ;  and  so  also  at 
the  great  yearly  festivals  (ib.  16— xxix.  39).  So  far  as  the  burnt-offering  had  a  specific  sig- 
nification of  its  own,  its  meaning  is  generally  assumed  by  theologians  to  have  been  that  of 
entire  consecration  to  God.  Such  a  meaning  is  certainly  sufficiently  appropriate;  but  is 
never  distinctly  attributed  to  it  in  the  Scriptures  either  of  the  Old  or  New  Testament.  It  is 
however  constantly  described  in  the  more  general  sense  of  a  means  of  approach  to  God. 

rot  is  used  not  so  much  for  any  particular  kind  of  sacrifice  as  for  the  victim  for  any 
sacrifice.  It  is  frequently  coupled  with  some  other  word  determining  the  kind  of  sacrifice 
intended,  especially  DW  rOT.  When  not  so  identified,  it  may  mean  any  kind  of  sacrifice 
(although  most  frequently  used  of  the  peace-offerings),  and  does  not  therefore  require  parti- 
cular consideration.  It  occurs  first  in  Gen.  xxxi.  54  and  xlvi.  1,  and  is  generally  rendered 
in  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  Biaia  and  hostia.  The  verb  is  the  technical  word  for  slaughtering 
animals  in  sacrifice,  nor  is  it  ever  used  in  any  other  sense  in  the  Pentateuch  except  in  Deut. 
xii.  15,  21,  where  permission  is  given  to  those  at  a  distance  from  the  sanctuary  to  slay  sacri- 
ficial animals  simply  for  food.  In  the  later  hooks  there  are  very  few  other  exceptions  to 
this  usage :  1  Sam.  xxviii.  24 ;  2  Chron.  xviii.  2 ;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  3.    From  this  word  is  derived 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  LEVITICAL  SACRIFICES.  13 

the  Hebrew  name  for  the  altar,  n3irp;  not,  as  sometimes  asserted,  because  sacrifices  were 
originally  slain  upon  the  altar  ;  but  because  this  was  the  place  of  destination  for  them. 

No  other  words  for  sacrifice  occur  until  the  time  of  the  Exodus.  There  the  various  spe- 
cialized forms  of  the  Mosaic  sacrifices  are  described ;  but  before  speaking  of  these  the  word 
HB^  must  be  mentioned,  which  is  frequently  rendered  (chiefly  in  Lev.  and  Num.)  offer  or 
sacrifice.  It  is  not,  however,  properly  a  sacrificial  term ;  but  merely  a  word  of  very  broad 
signification— like  irofeu  or  do — which  is  adapted  in  sense  to  its  connection.  It  first  occurs 
in  the  meaning  sacrifice  in  Ex.  xxix.  36.  Therefore  passing  by  this,  the  earliest  especial 
sacrificial  term  of  the  law  is  HD^,  niaxa,  pascha,  passover.  It  occurs  first  in  Ex.  xii.  11,  and 
frequently  afterwards,  although  only  once  in  Lev.  (xxiii.  5).  The  noun  always  means  the 
lamb  slain  by  the  head  of  each  house  in  Israel  on  the  14th  Nisan,  and  eaten  by  him  and  his 
family  the  following  evening,  or  at  least  the  seven  days'  feast  of  which  this  was  the  begin- 
ning, and  the  characteristic  feature.  The  history  of  its  institution  is  fully  given  in  Ex.  xii. 
From  the  abundant  references  to  it  in  the  New  Testament  it  was  plainly  designed  as  an 
especial  type  of  Christ.  It  was  distinctly  a  sacrifice,  being  reckoned  a  J3TD  in  Num.  ix.  7, 
13,  and  slain  in  the  place  of  sacrifice  (Deut.  xvi.  5,  6),  and  its  blood,  after  the  first  institu- 
tion, was  sprinkled  by  the  priests  (2  Chron.  xxx.  16;  xxxv.  11),  as  affirmed  by  all  Jewish 
authorities;  indeed,  it  is  in  connection  with  the  Passover  that  the  mention  of  the  treatment 
of  the  blood  of  sacrifice  first  occurs.  It  is  classed  by  Outram  among  the  Eucharistic  sacri- 
fices, and  is  assimilated  to  them  by  the  fact  that  its  flesh  was  eaten  by  the  offerer  and  his 
household ;  but  is  distinguished  from  them  in  having  nothing  of  it  given  to  the  priest.  It 
was  really  a  sacrifice  appointed  before  the  institution  of  the  priesthood  in  which  each  head 
of  the  family  offered,  and  thus  it  perpetuated  the  remembrance  that,  by  their  calling,  the 
whole  nation  were  a  holy  people,  chosen  "  to  draw  near  to  God."  Its  historic  relations  are 
always  most  prominent,  and  it  was  in  fact  the  great  sacrament  of  the  covenant  by  which 
God  had  delivered  Israel  and  constituted  them  His  chosen  people.  Its  celebration  consti- 
tuted the  chief  of  the  three  great  annual  festivals,  and  was  the  only  one  of  them  having  a 
fundamentally  sacrificial  character.  It  thus  became  a  fit  type  of  the  new  covenant  and  of  the 
deliverance  through  Christ  from  the  bondage  of  sin. 

The  OTJ  (from  D2^)  or  peace-offering,  is  first  mentioned  Ex.  xx.  24,  in  reference  to 
the  future  offerings  of  the  law,  but  in  a  way  that  seems  to  imply  a  previous  familiarity  with 
this  kind  of  sacrifice.  It  is  rendered  in  the  LXX.  sometimes  by  Apifl>ix6ct  but  more  generally 
by  auTi/pmvt  and  in  the  Vulg.  by  pacificus  and  salutare ;  in  the  A.  V.  uniformly  peace-offering. 
Under  the  law  it  was  separated  into  three  varieties :  the  thank,  the  vow,  and  the  free-will 
offering.  See  under  vii.  12.  In  Lev.  vii.  12,  13,  15;  xxii.  29,  the  thank-offering  has  the 
distinct  name,  iTliP,  which  does  not  elsewhere  occur  in  the  law,  though  frequent  afterwards. 
This  variety  included  all  the  prescribed  thank-offerings.  The  idea  of  propitiation  was  less 
prominent  in  this  than  in  any  other  sacrifice,  although  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood — which 
was  always  propitiatory — formed  a  part  of  its  ritual;  but  it  was  especially  the  sacrifice  of 
communion  with  God,  in  which  the  blood  was  sprinkled  and  the  fat  burned  upon  the  altar, 
certain  portions  given  to  the  priests,  and  the  rest  consumed  by  the  offerer  with  his  family 
and  friends  in  a  holy  sacrificial  meal.  In  the  wilderness  no  sacrificial  animal  might  be  used 
for  food  except  it  had  first  been  offered  as  a  sacrifice.  It  naturally  became  one  of  the  most 
common  of  all  the  sacrifices,  and  the  victims  for  it  were  sometimes  provided  in  enormous 
numbers,  as  at  Solomon's  dedication  of  the  temple  (1  Kings  viii.  63).  Peace-offerings  were, 
for  the  most  part,  voluntary,  but  were  also  prescribed  on  several  occasions,  as  at  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  Nazarite  vow  (Num.  vi.  17),  and  are  constantly  expected  at  the  great  festivals. 
"The  peace-offering  was  always  preceded  by  the  piacular  victim,  whenever  any  person  of- 
fered both  these  kinds  of  sacrifices  on  the  same  day.  Ex.  xxix.  14,  22;  Num.  vi.  14,  16,  17." 
Octkam.  Although  the  DTO  is  not  mentioned  under  its  distinctive  name  before  Ex.  xx. 
24,  yet  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  sacrifices  of  the  same  character  are  included  in  the  more 
general  term,  rot,  at  a  much  earlier  period  (see  Geu.  xxxi.  54;  Ex.  x.  25;  xviii.  12),  as 
they  were  certainly  common  at  all  times  among  the  heathen.  In  the  New  Testament  they 
are  alluded  to  in  Phil.  iv.  18  and  Heb.  xiii.  15,  16. 


14  LEVITICUS. 


nstsn  (from  the  Pihel  of  KBn)  in  the  sense  of  sin  occurs  in  Gen.  iv.  7  and  frequently  ; 
but  in  the  sense  of  sin-offering  is  not  found  before  the  establishment  of  the  Levitical  system. 
The  first  instance  of  this  sense  is  in  Ex.  xxix.  14,  after  which  it  is  very  frequent  both  in  the 
law  and  in  the  later  books.  Besides  a  variety  of  occasional  translations,  the  usual  rendering 
in  the  LXX.  is  d/iap-ia,  and  in  the  Vulg.  peceatum.  In  the  A.  V.  it  is  variously  translated 
punishment,  punishment  of  sin,  purification  for  sin,  purifying,  sinner,  sin  and  sin-offering  ;  but 
the  last  two  are  by  far  the  most  common.  It  is  the  distinctive,  technical  word  in  the  law 
for  the  piacular  offering  for  sin.  For  its  ritual  see  iv.— v.  13.  The  sin-offerings  of  which 
the  blood  was  carried  within  the  sanctuary,  and  whose  bodies  were  burned  without  the  camp, 
are  particularly  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament  as  typical  of  Christ ;  but  more  general 
references  to  Him  as  our  Sin-offering  are  frequent.  Sin-offerings  were  prescribed  (a)  at  each 
new  moon,  Num.  xxviii.  15  ;  (6)  at  each  of  the  three  great  festivals,  Num.  xxviii.  22,  30; 
xxix.  16,  19,  22,  25,  28,  31,  34,  38 ;  (c)  at  the  feast  of  trumpets  on  the  first  day  of  the  seventh 
month,  and  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  same,  ib.  5,  11 ;  (d)  the  sin-offering,  kot'  efrxfa  on  the 
great  day  of  atonement,  ch.  xvi. ;  (e)  private  sin-offerings,  for  a  woman  after  child-birth,  xii. 
C,  8  ;  for  the  leper  at  his  cleansing,  xiv.  19,  22,  31 ;  for  a  person  cleansed  of  an  issue,  xv.  15, 
30;  for  the  Nazarite  accidentally  defiled,  Num.  vi.  11,  and  at  the  time  of  the  fulfillment  of 
his  vow,  ib.  14,  16 ;  and  on  other  special  occasions,  Num.  vii.  16,  22,  28,  34,  40,  etc.;  besides 
the  ordinary  sin-offerings  of  Lev.  iv.  The  ordinary  victim  was  a  she-goat  or  a  ewe,  replaced 
for  the  high-priest  or  for  the  whole  congregation  by  a  bullock,  and  for  a  prince  by  a  he-goat 
for  reasons  given  in  the  commentary  on  Lev.  iv.  In  case  of  poverty,  for  the  ordinary  offer- 
ing might  be  substituted  turtle-doves  or  young  pigeons,  or  even  an  offering  of  flour.  But 
besides  regular  victims,  there  were  various  others  prescribed  for  those  exceptional  occasions 
which  from  their  nature  required  some  such  discrimination.  Thus  at  Aaron's  entrance  upon 
his  sacred  functions  his  sin-offering  was  a  calf  (Lev.  ix.  1-8) ;  at  the  end  of  the  Nazarite's 
vow  (Num.  vi.  14),  and  at  the  recovery  of  a  leper  able  to  bring  this  offering  (Lev.  xiv.  10, 
19),  a  ewe-lamb  was  the  prescribed  victim.  Though  not  strictly  sin-offerings,  yet  to  the 
same  general  category  belong  the  red  heifer  whose  ashes  were  used  for  purifications  (Num. 
xix.  2-22),  and  the  heifer  to  be  slain  in  case  of  an  unknown  murder  (Deut.  xxi.  1-9).  Yet 
these  were  all  peculiar  and  exceptional  cases,  and  the  rule  remains  that  the  ordinary  sin- 
offering  was  always  the  same. 

pip  is  first  used  Lev.  i.  2,  occurs  very  frequently  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers,  and  is 
neveAised  elsewhere  except  twice  in  Ezekiel.  (With  the  pointing,  J3"1j?,  it  is  also  found 
twice  in  Neb.)  There  are  but  one  or  two  variations  from  the  translation,  iapov,  in  the  LXX., 
and  donum  in  the  Vulg.  In  the  A.  V.  it  is  generally  translated  offering,  but  sometimes  obla- 
tion, and  once  (Lev.  xxvii.  11)  sacrifice.  Its  meaning  is  perfectly  clear— that  which  is  of- 
fered (brought  nigh)  to  God,  whether  as  a  sacrifice  or  as  a  dedicatory  gift;  if,  however,  the 
thing  offered  be  a  sacrificial  animal,  then  of  course  it  necessarily  means  a  sacrifice.  In  either 
case,  it  is  something  given  to  God. 

at^N,  like  the  nearly  related  rWBn,  has  the  double  sense  of  trespass  or  guilt  and  trespass- 
offering*  It  occurs  once  in  Genesis  (xxvi.  10)  in  the  former  sense,  but  is  not  found  in  the 
latter  earlier  than  Lev.  v.  6.  It  is  frequent  in  Leviticus,  and  less  so  in  subsequent  books  in 
both  senses.  In  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  it  has  a  considerable  variety  of  renderings ;  but  the 
most  frequent  are  LXX.  nly/i/iaeia,  and  Vulg.  delictum.  For  the  distinction  between  this 
and  the  sin-offering,  see  iv.  1  and  v.  14. 

There  remains,  as  belonging  to  the  list  of  the  sacrifices,  the  incense,  for  which  two  words 
are  used,  neither  of  which  occur  before  the  giving  of  the  law.  nju1?  first  occurs  Ex.  xxx. 
34,  and  is  uniformly  translated  in  the  LXX.  Vftovog  (once,  however,  2,ipavuT6c),  and  in  the 
Vulg.  thus  ;  it  is  always  frankincense  in  the  A.  V.  except  in  Isa.  and  Jer.  where  it  is  always 
incense.  It  is  "  a  costly,  sweet-smelling,  pale-yellow  resin,  the  milky  exudation  of  a  shrub  " 
(Fuerst).  roup,  which  first  occurs  Ex.  xxv.  6,  on  the  other  hand,  is  an  incense  com- 
pounded of  frankincense  and  various  sweet  spices  (Ex.  xxx.  34).  It  is  usually  translated  in 
the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  QvyXaaa,  thymiama,  but  sometimes  aivdemc,  composi.tio.  In  the  A.  V.  it 
is  rendered  either  incense,  or  sweel  incense,  or  a  few  times  perfume.    This  incense  was  to  be 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  LEVITICAL  SACRIFICES.  15 

burnt  only  within  the  sanctuary,  twice  daily  on  the  golden  altar  (Ex.  xxx.  7,  S),  and  also  by 
the  high-priest  in  the  holy  of  holies  on  the  day  of  atonement  (Lev.  xvi.  12,  13).  The  frank- 
incense was  offered  by  the  people  as  a  part  of  their  oblations,  and  was  mostly  burnt  in  the 
court.  The  burning  of  all  incense  was  a  strictly  priestly  act,  and  is  constantly  spoken  of  in 
the  Scriptures  as  symbolical  of  prayer  (e.  g.  Rev.  v.  8 ;  viii.  3,  4).  Pre-eminently  does  it 
typify  the  intercession  of  the  true  High  Priest  in  heaven  itself. 

The  word  7VD$=offeringa  made  by  fire,  is  not  so  much  the  name  of  a  sacrifice  as  a  de- 
scription of  all  sacrifices  burned  upon  the  altar.  It  is  applied  to  various  kinds  of  sacrifices, 
Lev.  i.  9 ;  ii.  3 ;  iii.  5,  etc.  1p)=drink-offering  is  first  used  Gen.  xxxv.  14,  and  is  not  pro- 
perly a  sacrifice  itself,  but  an  accompaniment  of  other  sacrifices,  nsur^wave-offering,  and 
rni"iri=heave-onering,  refer  to  particular  modes  of  presentation  of  certain  offerings. 

The  animals  used  for  victims  were  either  "  of  the  flock  or  of  the  herd,"  or  in  case  of 
poverty,  doves  or  pigeons.  These  were  all  clean  animals,  and  were  consequently  among 
those  commonly  used  for  food ;  the  quadrupeds  were  from  domestic  animals,  and  the  birds 
those  most  easy  of  capture.  (Domestic  fowls  are  said  not  to  have  been  known  before  the 
time  of  Solomon.)  The  ease  and  certainty  of  procuring  these  various  victims  seems  a  more 
likely  reason  for  their  selection  than  either  their  tameness — which  certainly  does  not  apply 
to  the  bull — or  their  value  as  property,  since  the  cost  of  procuring  wild  animals  would  usually 
have  been  far  greater.  The  idea  that  these  animals  were  especially  appointed  for  sacrificial 
victims  because  they  were  held  sacred  among  heathen  nations,  and  particularly  among  the 
Egyptians,  although  often  advanced,  is  unsatisfactory  for  two  reasons :  first,  because  on  this 
ground  there  is  no  reason  why  the  number  of  sacrificial  animals  should  not  have  been  greatly 
enlarged ;  secondly,  because  these  very  animals,  for  the  most  part,  were  used  in  sacrifice  by 
the  nations  that  also  worshipped  them.  Whatever  typical  significance  they  may  have  had, 
this  can  hardly  be  considered  as  the  reason  for  their  selection,  since  in  the  typical  language 
of  the  prophets  various  other  animals  (e.  g.  the  lion  and  the  eagle)  are  so  largely  used.  In 
fact  the  lamb  seems  to  be  the  only  one  of  the  sacrificial  animals  typically  employed  in  pro- 
phecy, the  dove  being  only  an  alternative  victim  for  the  poor. 

The  public  animal-sacrifices  of  the  Israelites  may  be  broadly  separated  into  three  great 
classes,  according  to  the  prominent  purpose  of  each.  I.  The  Burnt-offerings,  or  offerings  of 
approach  to  God.  The  main  idea  of  these,  in  so  far  as  they  had  any  especially  distinctive 
idea,  is  geuerally  considered  to  have  been  consecration  to  God's  service  as  the  necessary  con- 
dition of  approaching  Him,  and  yet  also  including  in  a  subordinate  way  the  idea  of  expia- 
tion, without  which  sinful  men  might  not  draw  near  to  God  at  all.  This  idea  is  represented 
outwardly  and  once  for  all  in  the  Christian  Church  by  baptism,  and  in  its  continual  repeti- 
tion by  the  various  acts  of  worship  and  efforts  to  conform  the  life  to  Christ's  example.  With 
the  burnt-offering  belonged  the  unbloody,  eucharistic  oblation,  together  with  its  incense 
symbolizing  prayer.  II.  The  sin-offering,  in  its  various  forms,  expressly  provided  for  the 
purpose  of  atonement.  Having  no  inherent  efficacy,  this  yet  clearly  pointed  forward  to  the 
only  effectual  atonement  made  by  Christ  Himself  upon  the  cross.  This  sacrifice,  as  is  most 
clearly  shown  in  Hebrews,  being  efficacious  for  the  forgiveness  of  all  sin,  can  never  be  re- 
peated ;  yet  according  to  Christ's  own  command,  we  are  to  show  forth  His  death  until  He 
come  again  in  the  Lord's  supper,  and  thus  historically  the  great  sacrament  of  the  Christian 
Church  points  back  to  that  which  the  Levitical  system  prefigured.  The  central  point  of 
both  dispensations  is  the  same,  but  in  the  one  case  prophetic,  in  the  other  historic.  III. 
The  Peace-offerings  were  the  ordinary  means  of  communion  with  God  through  an  external 
rite,  and  of  expressing  outwardly  thanksgiving  for  His  mercies,  or  supplication  for  His  favors. 
They  are  to  be  considered  not  so  much  as  typical  definitely  of  any  one  thing  in  the  new  dis- 
pensation, but  rather  as  meeting  under  the  old  a  need  which  is  now  otherwise  supplied ;  yet 
still  in  common  with  all  sacrifices,  they  serve  to  set  forth  in  shadow  Him  "  who  is  our  peace," 
and  on  whom  feeding  by  faith  we  now  have  peace  with  God. 

Besides  these  great  classes  of  sacrifices,  there  were  a  multitude  of  others,  mostly  for  indi- 
viduals, some  of  which  are  distinctly  included  under  one  or  the  other  of  these  classes,  while 
others  share  the  character  of  more  than  one  of  them,  and  others,  like  the  Passover,  have  a 


16  LEVITICUS. 


character  peculiar  to  themselves.  These  will  be  treated  in  their  appropriate  places.  There 
is  one  of  them  which  must  be  mentioned  on  account  of  its  great  importance — the  red  heifer 
— but  its  treatment  belongs  in  the  following  book,  Num.  xix.  1-10.  In  general  it  may  be 
said,  that  as  God's  works  will  not  conform  very  precisely  to  any  human  classification,  since 
each  creature  is  an  individual  entity  to  the  Infinite,  but  always  there  will  be  characteristics 
in  one  group  allying  the  genera  in  which  it  is  found  to  some  other  widely  se  parated  group 
so  also  in  the  works  of  the  Divine  word,  we  can  only  classify  broadly  and  having  regard  to 
the  most  salient  features,  while,  in  view  of  less  important  characteristics,  we  might  often  be 
compelled  to  change  the  best  classification  that  can  be  formed. 

The  vegetable  sacrifices,  or  oblations,  were  correspondingly  varied.  These  were  usually 
accompaniments  of  the  animal-offerings,  but  sometimes  were  independent.  This  was  the 
case  not  only  with  the  alternative  sin-offering  (Lev.  v.  11),  and  the  jealousy-offering  (Num. 
v.  15),  but  also  with  the  shew-bread,  the  Passover  sheaf  of  barley  and  the  Pentecostal  wheaten 
loaves.  Incense  also  was  at  times  an  independent  offering.  Drink-offerings  appear  exclu- 
sively as  accompaniments  of  the  animal  sacrifices,  and  were  of  wine ;  but  their  ritual  is  no- 
where prescribed. 

The  mineral  kingdom  was  represented  in  the  sacrifices  only  by  the  salt  with  which  all 
other  offerings  were  to  be  salted. 

The  ritual  of  the  various  sacrifices  will  be  treated  as  they  occur  in  the  text.  Suffice  it 
here  to  say  that  three  essential  points  are  to  be  observed  in  all :  First,  that  the  victim  should 
be  solemnly  offered  to  God.  This,  as  Outeam  clearly  shows  (I.  xv.  4),  was  accomplished 
by  presenting  the  living  victim  or  the  oblation  before  the  altar,  and  was  the  act  of  the  offerer. 
Second,  that  the  offerer  should  lay  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the  victim  thereby  personally 
identifying  himself  with  what  he  did.  The  exceptions  to  this  are  in  the  case  of  birds,  for 
obvious  reasons,  and  in  the  case  of  the  Paschal  lamb,  instituted  before  the  Levitical  system, 
and  when  this  act  was  unnecessary  as  the  offerer  acted  himself  in  some  sort  as  priest.  Third, 
the  intervention  of  a  priest,  as  the  mediator  between  God  and  man,  who  must  sprinkle  the 
blood  and  burn  the  parts  required  upon  the  altar ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  ordinary  sin-offering 
as  well  as  of  many  of  the  oblations,  he  must  himself,  as  the  representative  of  God,  consume 
the  remainder. 

It  appears  from  constant  Eabbinical  tradition,  as  well  as  from  the  probability  of  the 
case,  that  prayer  or  confession  on  the  part  of  the  offerer  always  accompanied  the  sacrifice. 
Indeed,  this  is  often  spoken  of  in  particular  cases  in  Scripture  itself,  and  language  is  there 
used  in  regard  to  the  sacrifices  which  implies  the  universality  of  the  custom.  When  the 
patriarchs  built  altars,  they  "called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord"  (Gen.  xii.  8,  etc.).  Con- 
fession is  required  in  connection  with  the  sin  and  trespass-offerings  (Lev.  v.  5;  Num.  v.  7), 
and  especially  with  the  great  propitiation  on  the  day  of  atonement  (Lev.  xvi.  21).  A  form 
of  prayer  is  prescribed  for  the  oblation  of  the  first  fruits  (Deut.  xxvi.  3-10),  and  of  the  tithes 
(ib.  13-15).  Sacrificing  and  calling  upon  God  are  often  used  as  equivalent  terras  (1  Sam. 
xiii.  12;  Prov.  xv.  8,  etc.),  and  the  temple  is  indifferently  called  "the  house  of  sacrifice"  (2 
Chron.  vii.  12,  etc.),  and  "the  house  of  prayer''  (Isa.  lvi.  7,  etc.),  and  frequently  prayer  and 
confession  are  mentioned  in  connection  with  sacrifice  on  particular  occasions,  or  in  a  general 
way  as  showing  that  the  one  accompanied  the  other  as  a  matter  of  course  (1  Sam.  vii.  9 ;  Job 
xlii.  8 ;  Ezra  vi.  10 ;  1  Chron.  xxi.  26 ;  xxix.  10-21 ;  2  Chron.  xxx.  22 ;  Ps.  lxvi.  13-20 ;  cxvi.  13, 
17,  etc.).  For  further  details  of  the  ritual,  and  especially  for  the  Eabbinical  traditions  on  the 
subject,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Outram,  Kalisch,  and  other  special  treatises  on  sacrifice. 

Of  the  purpose  and  design  of  the  whole  sacrificial  cultus,  but  little  need  be  added  to 
what  has  already  been  said.  That  in  a  theocratic  state  the  expiatory  offerings  had,  as  an 
incidental  object,  the  compensation  for  minor  offences  against  that  state,  and  the  doing  away 
with  ceremonial  hindrances  to  worship  is  undeniable ;  but  that  they  had  also  a  farther  and 
higher  object  is  plain  both  from  the  study  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  itself  and  from  their 
treatment  throughout  the  New  Testament,  especially  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Besides 
their  typical  value,  they  had  a  powerful  educational  use.  "  As  we  survey  the  expiatory 
offerings  of  the  Hebrews,  which  for  purity  stand  unrivalled  in  the  ancient  world,  we  are 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  LEVITICAL  SACRIFICES. 


bound  to  admit  that  they  were  pre-eminently  calculated  to  keep  alive  among  the  nation 
those  feelings  on  which  all  religious  life  depends,  and  from  which  it  flows  as  its  natural 
source,  the  feelings  of  human  sinfulness  and  the  conviction  of  the  divine  holiness,  by  the 
standard  of  which  that  sinfulness  is  to  be  measured;  they  fostered,  therefore,  at  once  humi- 
lity and  an  ideal  yearning ;  and  they  effectually  counteracted  that  sense  of  self-righteousness 
natural  indeed  to  the  pride  of  man,  but  utterly  destructive  of  all  noble  virtues.  They  were 
well  suited  to  secure  in  the  directest  and  completest  manner  that  singleness  of  life  and  heart 
which  is  the  true  end  of  all  sacrifices.  *  *  *  Though  bearing  the  character  of  vicarious- 
ness,  the  sin-offerings  were  far  from  encouraging  an  external  worship  by  lifeless  ceremonies ; 
in  themselves  the  spontaneous  offspring  of  religious  repentance,  and  thus  naturally  helping 
to  nourish  the  same  beneficent  feeling,  they  were  the  strongest  guarantee  for  a  life  of  honesty 
and  active  virtue."  Kalisch  I.,  p.  187  sq. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  remembered  that  while  sacrifices  were  abundantly  provided  for  him 
who  sinned  inadvertently,  on  the  other  hand  no  sacrifice  was  allowed  for  him  who  sinned 
"  presumptuously  "  (Num.  xv.  30, 31 ;  Deut.  xvii.  12),  that  is,  with  deliberate  and  high-handed 
purpose ;  for  the  offender  thus  declared  that  he  did  not  desire  to  be  at  one  with  God ;  there 
was  in  him  no  internal  disposition  to  correspond  with  the  outward  act  of  sacrifice.  Certainly 
nothing  could  show  more  clearly  that  the  efficacy  of  sacrifice  is  connected  with  the  disposi- 
tion of  the  heart.  It  was  natural  that  many  of  the  fathers,  in  the  strong  re-action  of  early 
Christianity  from  Judaism,  should  have  thought  the  Jewish  sacrifices  were  "  instituted  be- 
cause the  people,  having  been  long  accustomed  to  such  modes  of  worship  in  Egypt,  could 
scarcely  have  been  confined  to  the  worship  of  the  one  true  God  without  the  indulgence  and 
introduction  into  their  religion  of  those  rites  to  which  they  had  been  long  habituated  and 
were  exceedingly  attached"  (Justin  Martyr,  Irenoeus,  Tertullian,  Theodoret,  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria, as  referred  to  by  Octraji).  Nevertheless,  they  saw  in  them  distinctly  a  typical 
reference  to  Christ,  and  Origen  is  elsewhere  quoted  as  showing  that  this  belonged  to  all  the 
sacrifices  because  they  all  ceased  with  His  sacrifice. 

Laxge  {Dogmalik  in  Lev.),  after  showing  the  connection  between  this  and  the  prece- 
ding book,  continues:  "  Leviticus  then  is  right  in  treating  first  of  the  sacrifice.  Nothing  is 
clearer  than  that  the  sacrifice  is  not  herein  a  new,  positive,  Divine  command,  but  is  a  ground- 
form,  true  of  natural  religion,  which  as  such  depends  originally  on  a  spiritual  impulse.  It  is 
said  of  Cain  and  Abel,  that  they  offered  sacrifice,  but  not  that  sacrifice  was  commanded  them. 
Noah  in  the  same  way  sacrificed  from  free  inclination."  [Is  not  something  more  implied  in 
the  command  to  take  into  the  ark  of  the  clean  animals  by  sevens?]  "It  seems  significant 
that  only  after  the  performance  of  the  sacrifice  is  the  divine  satisfaction  mentioned.  Thus 
the  theocratic  sacrifice  is  the  consecration  of  the  natural  sacrifice  existing  before.  *  *  * 
This  then  is  the  meaning  of  the  symbolic  sacrifice ;  it  is  the  expression  of  the  fact  that  the 
offerer,  in  his  sin  and  sinfulness,  feels  his  need  of  an  inward  resignation  and  confesses  it  with 
the  offering  of  the  symbolic  sacrifice  and  requests  that  the  grace  of  God  may  supply  his  need, 
i.  e.  may  lead  him  by  the  sacrificial  teaching  to  the  completion  of  the  sacrificial  offering  in 
faith.  So  there  lies  in  the  idea  of  sacrifice,  as  in  the  law,  the  spring  of  a  positive  movement; 
and  as  Christ  is  certainly  the  final  cause  of  the  law  as  the  objective  requirement  of  sacrifice, 
so  is  He  of  the  sacrifice  as  the  subjective  law  of  life.  The  law  and  the  sacrifice  come  toge- 
ther inseparably  in  the  fulfillment  which  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  has  brought.  *  *  *  * 
On  the  various  theories  which  concern  sacrifice,  compare  the  dictionaries,  particularly  Winer  ; 
also  the  archaeological  works ;  especially  also  the  article  by  Oehler  in  Herzog's  Realency- 
clopadie,  entitled  Opfercultus  im  Allen  Testament.  For  more  detailed  treatment  of  the  sub- 
ject, see  also  my  Positive  Dogmatik.  *  *  *  First  of  all,  the  legal  sacrifices  are  indeed, 
in  the  sacrificial  system  of  worship,  themselves  real  satisfactions,  that  is,  the  discharge  of 
duties  and  the  reparation  for  transgressions  against  the  social  law.  But  the  social  law  would 
be  entirely  arbitrary  if  it  had  no  higher  sense;  this  sense  is  the  prayer  for  grace  to  complete 
it,  for  perfection.  It  does  not  come  finally  to  a  satisfactory  end  if  it  does  not  attain  to  the 
granting  of  the  prayer,  to  the  peace  of  God,  to  expiation.  In  the  first  particular,  the  sacri- 
fice is  a  real  performance  in  the  court,  which  can  be  misconceived  to  be  self-righteousness; 


18  LEVITICUS. 


in  the  second,  it  is  a  symbolic  treatment  of  prayer  as  incense  in  the  temple ;  in  the  highest 
particular,  it  is  an  act  of  the  typical  hope  of  faith,  of  the  atonement  in  the  holy  of  holies, 
which  the  priest  accomplished  with  hazard  and  inward  resignation  of  his  life  under  the  fatal 
effect  of  the  sight  of  the  majesty  of  God. 

"  These  three  particulars  are  displayed  in  the  three  different  forms  of  sacrifice,  eucharis- 
tica,  impetratoria,  piacularia ;  but  so  that  whatever  form  predominates,  the  others  are  sup- 
posed with  it.  The  trunk-root  or  fundamental  form,  however,  is  furnished  by  the  burnt- 
offering,  for  which  reason  all  sacrifices  are  burnt-offerings  in  a  narrower  or  wider  sense ;  all 
are  God's  fire,  God's  bread,  on  the  altar ;  hence,  in  the  first  case  the  Fire,  as  the  symbol  of 
the  Divine  power,  may  consume  the  whole  sacrifice  ( ''73) ;  in  the  second  case  the  Blood 
may  signify  the  prevailing  thought  in  sacrifice,  as  the  symbol  of  the  resignation  of  the  soul, 
the  life;  the  third  case  is  the  Holy  food,  the  sacrificial  meal,  as  a  symbol  of  the  consecration 
of  life's  enjoyment  in  the  midst  of  life  itself.  These  three  particulars  are  found  fully  con- 
nected in  the  Passover,  which  forms  the  general  theocratic  hallowing  of  the  natural  princi- 
ple of  sacrifice,  and  pre-supposes  the  symbolical  new  birth,  i.  e.  the  circumcision  or  physical 
cleansing.    So  too  in  reference  to  the  curse-sacrifice :  cherem."    *    *    * 

The  sacrifices  "  are  themselves  divided  into  pure  and  applied  forms  of  worship.  The 
pure  cultus-sacrifices  are  divided  into  universal,  fixed  and  casual.  The  first  are  the  Sabbath 
and  the  Feast-day  sacrifices,  normal  sacrifices  of  all  Israel ;  the  last  are  those  occasioned  by 
and  commanded  in  various  circumstances.  Both  kinds,  however,  are  often  interchanged, 
absolutely  as  antitheses  of  the  sacrifice  of  destruction,  the  Cherem. 

"1.  The  hallowed  fundamental  form  of  the  sacrifice — the  Passover. 

"  2.  The  central  point  of  all  sacrifices,  the  imperishable  symbolical  idea,  the  burnt-offering. 

"  3.  On  the  left  hand  of  the  burnt-sacrifice  we  find  the  sin  and  trespass-offerings,  in 
which  also  the  transition-forms  come  into  consideration  (see  the  Exegesis) ;  on  the  right 
hand  is  the  prosperity  or  salvation-offering — in  the  forms  of  the  praise-offering,  the  votive 
(the  prayer)  offering,  and  that  of  the  simple  well-being — and  besides  generally,  the  hallowed 
slaying  and  the  consecration  of  the  blood. 

"  4.  The  summit  of  all  sacrifices,  the  great  propitiatory  sacrifice,  in  which  the  antithesis 
of  the  salvation-offering  with  the  curse-offering  is  rendered  especially  prominent  in  the  he- 
goat  of  the  Azazel."     [But  on  this  see  the  Exegetical,  ch.  xvi.] 

"  As  forms  of  the  applied  sacrifice,  appear  the  covenant-sacrifice,  the  sacrifices  at  the 
consecration  of  the  priests,  the  various  sacrifices  of  purification,  the  central  sacrifice  of  puri- 
fication, or  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer,  and  in  antithetical  position  the  jealousy-sacrifice  and 
the  sacrifice  at  the  festival  of  a  completed  vow."  *  *  * 

Lange  then  describes  the  sacrificial  material  and  /he  sacrificial  act,  which  are  sufficiently 
treated  in  the  commentary.  In  conclusion,  he  adds :  "  The  line  of  the  three  altars,  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering,  the  altar  of  incense,  and  the  mercy-seat,  is  completed  by  still  a  fourth  hal- 
lowed place  of  sacrifice  without  the  camp,  that  is,  the  ash-heap  of  the  red  heifer,  for  the 
meaning  of  which  Heb.  xiii.  13  is  a  passage  especially  to  be  considered.  Out  beyond  this 
place  lay  the  wilderness,  also  the  place  of  death  for  the  cherem,  the  curse-sacrifice. 

"  With  the  gradations  of  the  altar,  the  gradations  of  the  sprinking  of  the  blood  are 
parallel  even  to  the  sprinkling  "  [before]  "  the  mercy-seat  in  the  holy  of  holies.  They  stand 
in  contrast  to  the  gradations  of  the  burning  whose  minimum  appears  in  the  meat-offering" 
[which  was,  however,  in  some  cases  wholly  consumed  (Lev.  vi.  22)],  "and  whose  maximum 
is  in  the  burnt-offering.  In  the  blood  is  expressed  the  entire  resignation  of  man  to  death; 
in  the  fire,  the  complete  consuming  power  of  God  over  man's  strength  of  life. 

"  In  the  whole  matter  of  sacrifice  the  idea  of  communion,  of  the  feast  of  fellowship, 
between  God  and  man  becomes  prominent  in  many  ways,  and  is  especially  represented  by 
the  table  of  shew-bread,  and  by  the  portions  of  the  priests.  In  reference  to  this  communion, 
however,  Jehovah  has  exclusively  reserved  to  Himself  the  blood  and  the  fat,  and  has  exclu- 
sively forbidden  leaven  in  the  offering  (though  not  in  what  was  presented  before  God  for  the 
use  of  the  priests)  and  honey.  But  the  people  are  represented,  too,  in  the  whole  priestly 
communion,  and  receive  the  whole  effect  of  their  service :  the  blessing  of  Jehovah,  which  also 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  LEVITICAL  SACRIFICES.  19 

rises  in  distinct  gradations,  from  the  absolution  in  the  court,  the  light  in  the  temple,  to  the  vi- 
sion of  God  in  the  holy  of  holies ;  and  thence  comes  back  to  the  people  under  corresponding  con- 
ditions :  confession,  prayer,  consecration  by  means  of  death  ( Todeswiehe).  Thus  also  the  fur- 
ther relations  of  the  sacrifice  are  explained.  The  sacrifice  of  the  heart  unfolds  itself  in  the 
sacrifice  of  the  lips,  in  prayer,  and  in  the  sacrifices  of  the  respective  death-consecrations,  or 
of  the  renunciation  and  dedication  in  vows  by  which  the  Nazarite  was  connected  with 
the  priests." 

In  his  LTomiletih  in  Leu.,  Laxge  further  says :  "  The  Israelitish  sacrifice  is  taken  into 
the  care  of  Jehovah,  is  the  sanctified  offering,  the  symbol  of  the  internal  sacrifice,  the 
type  of  the  future  completed  sacrifice,  the  instruction  which  prepared  for  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  and  the  sacrifices  of  Christianity.  The  difference  between  the  outward  and  the  in- 
ward sacrifice,  between  the  symbol  and  the  thought  it  expresses,  is  rendered  definitely  pro- 
minent even  in  the  Old  Testament. 

"Literature. — See  Keil,  Handbuch  der  biblischen  Archaologie.  Die  goftesdienstlichen 
Verhaltnisse  der  Israeliten,  p.  47  ss.  Das  mosaische  Opfcr,  p.  195  ss.  Baehr  (see  above). 
Bramesfeld,  Der  alttestamentliche  Gottesdienst  in  seiner  sinndbildlichcn  und  vorbildlichen 
Bedeutung.  Gutersloh,  1864.  Hengstenberg,  Die  Opfer  der  heil.  Schrift.  Berlin,  1859. 
Keil,  Die  Opfer  des  Alien  Bundes  (Guericke's  Zeitschrifl,  1836,  37).  Kliefoth,  Die 
tirsprungliche  Gottesdienstordnung  der  deutschen  Kirche.  1.  Bel.  Schwerin,  1858.  Kurtz, 
Der  alttestamentliche  Opfercultus.  Mittau,  1864.  Neumann,  Die  Opfer  des  Alien  Bundes. 
Oehlee,  Der  Opfercultus,  in  Herzog's  Realencyclopadie.^  Sartoeitjs,  Ueber  den  alt-und 
neutestamentlichen  Kullus.  Stuttgart,  1852.  Tholuck,  Das  Alte  Testament  in  Neuen 
Testament.  Hamburg,  1849.  Lisko,  Das  Ceremonial gesetz  des  Alten  Testaments,  seine 
ErfuUung  im  Neuen  Testament.  Berlin,  1842.  Wangemann,  Die  Opfer  der  heiligen 
Schrift  nach  der  Lehre  des  Alten  Testaments.  2  Bde.  Berlin,  1866.  (Worthy  of  especial 
note  is  the  catalogue  of  literature,  Gen.  Introd.  A.  ?  5,  B.,  and  the  statement  in  reference  to 
the  development  of  the  ecclesiastical  idea  of  sacrifice,  ib.  I  6)."  Add:  Philo  de  Victimis. 
Outram,  De  sacrificiis.  London,  1677  (translated  by  Allen,  London,  1817).  Spencee, 
De  legihus  Hebrceorum,  Tubingen,  1732.  Maimonides,  De  sacrificiis,  London,  1683.  Cud- 
•WORTH,  De  Ccena  Domini,  Leyden,  1773  (Vol.  II.,  translation  of  Intel.  System,  Andover, 
1837).  A.  A.  Sykes,  Essay  on  the  Nature,  Design  and  Origin  of  Sacrifices,  1748.  J.  D.  Ml- 
chaelis,  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses  (translated  by  A.  Smith,  London,  1814). 
Rosenmuelleb,  Excursus  II.  in  Lev.,  Leipsic,  1824.  Fabee,  On  the  Origin  of  Sacrifice, 
London,  1827.  J.  Davison,  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and  Intent  of  Primitive  Sacrifice 
(Remains).  Tholttck,  Diss.  II.  in  App.  to  Ep.  to  the  Heb.  (Trans,  by  Eyland,  Edinh., 
1842).  F.  T>.  Maurice,  The  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice  deduced  from  Scripture,  Cambridge,  1854. 
Kalisch,  Lev.,  Pt.  I.,  London,  1867.  Clark,  Introd.  to  Lev.  {Speaker's  Com.),  London  and 
New  York,  1872.  Also  further  authorities  cited  by  Conant  in  Smith's  Bib.  Did.  Art. 
Lev.,  Am.  Ed. 


LEVITICUS. 

THE  THIRD  BOOK  OF  MOSES. 


book:  i. 
of  approach  to  god. 

Chaps.  I.— XVI. 

"FIRST  DIVISION. — The  sanctifying  acts  (or  consecrations  for  God)  to  bring 
about  typical  holiness  by  means  of  various  sacrifices,  universally  ordained  for 
universal  sin.  The  removal  of  the  sinful  condition  incurred  by  inadvertence 
(pardonable  sins  njJBO  chaps.  I. — XVI  [a.  positive  enactments,  I. — X.;  b. 
negative,  XI.— XVI.]')."— Lange. 


PART  I.    THE  LAWS  OF  SACRIFICE. 

Chaps.  I.— VII. 


FIRST    SECTION. 

Chaps.  I.— VI.  7. 

[Lange  makes  the  division  "Personal  Sacrifices"  Chapters  I. —  Vl\ 

A.— BURNT-OFFERINGS. 

Chap.  I.  1-17. 

1  And  the  Lord  called1  unto  Moses,  and  spake  unto  him  out  of  the  tabernacle'  of 

2  the  [omit  the3]   congregation,  saying,   Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and  say 
unto  them,  If  any  man  of  you  bring  an  offering  unto  the  Lord,*  ye  shall  bring  your 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ter.  1.  JOp^l  in  our  text  has  the  final  X  of  smaller  size  than  the  other  letters.    The  reason  (leaving  out  of  view 

Cabalistic  interpretations)  seems  to  he  that  suggested  by  Kosenmiiller— that  there  was  an  ancient  variation  of  the  MSS., 
suiue  having  nur  present  reading  ;  while  others,  omitting  the  fc$,  read  "Ip"1),  Fut.  Apoc.  Niphal  of  7"Pp=and  the   Lord 

met  (or  appeared  to)  Moses.    Comp.  Num.  xxiii.  4, 16. 

*  Ver.  1.  Snj?  means  Btrictly  the  covering  of  haircloth  over  the  JJCfo  of  boards  with  linen  curtains.     Both  occur 

together,  Ex.  xl!  29.  Both  are  translated  in  the  A.  V.  alike  by  tent  and  by  tabernacle,  and  both  in  the  LXX.  most  frequently 
byo-KTjfi}.  In  the  oriirinal  both  are  used  to  designate  the  structure  in  which  the  ark  was  placed.  There  is  therefore  no 
sufficient  reason  for  changing  the  familiar  name  of  Tabernacle. 

3  Ver.  1.  ~\y)0  is  without  the  article,  as  always.    The  word  is  used  very  frequently  (Lev.  xxiii.  2,  4,  37,  44,  etc.)  of  the 

religious  festivals  of  the  Law,  of  which  the  tabernacle  was  the  centre,  and  perhaps  both  in  the  Heb.  and  the  Chald.  the 
"  times  of  tho  festivals  "  is  the  most  prominent  idea  of  the  word.    Hence,  as  the  place  of  assembly,  the  centre  around  which 

the  congregation  was  at  such  times  to  gather,  the  Tabernacle  came  to  be  called  "1^*10    771N,  as  Jerusalem  is  called  (Isa. 

xxxiii.  20)  '0    JVTp.    The  proposal  to  translate  Tent  of  meeting  (Speaker's  Com.,  Kalisch,  Murphy,  and  many  others)  as 

referring  to  God's  meeting  with  Moses,  seems  unsupported  by  the  usage  of  the  word,  and  is  sustained  by  none  of  the  ancient 
versions.  (The  LXX.  and  Vulgate  take  the  word  in  the  sense  of  covenant  or  laic).  The  article,  however,  should  be  omitted. 
Nevertheless,  Lange  says  "  The  Tabernacle  is  designated  as  the  Tabernacle  of  the  meeting.  That  the  Israelites  should 
assemble  themselves  in  that  place,  is  only  the  secondary  result  of  the  primary  meeting  with  Jehovah." 

*  Ver.  2.  The  Masoretic  pnnctuation  places  the  Athnach  on  niiT  >,  and  this  is  sustained  by  the  Sam.,  Chald.,  LXX., 

at  :-  21 


22  LEVITICUS. 


offerino-5  of  the  cattle,  even  of  the  herd,  and  of  the  flock  [of  the  cattle  unto  the  Lord, 
ye  shall  bring  your  offering  of  the  herd  or  of  the  flock]. 

3  If  his  offering  be  a  burnt  sacrifice  of  the  herd,  let  him  offer  a  male  without  blem- 
ish :  he  shall  offer  it  of  his  own  voluntary  will  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
[omit  the3]  congregation  before  the  Lord6  [offer  it  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of 

4  congregation  for  his  acceptance  before  the  Lord].  And  he  shall  put  his  hand 
upon  the  head  of  the  burnt  offering ;  and  it  shall  be  accepted    for  him  to  make 

5  atonement  for  him.  And  he  shall  kill  the  bullock  before  the  Lord  :  and  the 
priests,  Aaron's  sons,  shall  bring  the  blood,  and  sprinkle  the  blood  round  about 
upon'  the  altar  that  is  by  [before  ]  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the3] 

6  conorecation.     And  he8  shall  flay  the  burnt  offering,  and  cut  it  into  his  pieces. 

7  And  the  sons  of  Aaron  the  priest  shall  put  fire  upon  the  altar,  and  lay  the  wood  in 

8  order  upon  the  fire:  and  the  priests,  Aaron's  sons,  shall  lay  the  parts,  the  head, 
and  the  fat,  in  order  upon  the  wood  that  is  on  the  fire  which  is  upon  the  altar  : 

9  but  his  inwards  and  his  legs  shall  he9  wash  in  water  :  and  the  priest  shall  burn  all 
on  the  altar,  to  be  a  burnt  sacrifice,10  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet  savour 
unto  the  Lord. 

10  And  if  his  offering  be  of  the  flocks,"  namely,  of  the  sheep,  or  of  the  goats,  for  a 

11  burnt  sacrifice  ;  he  shall  bring  it  a  male  without  blemish.12  "And  he  shall  kill  it 
on  the  side  of  the  altar  northward  before  the  Lord  :  and  the  priests,  Aaron's  sons, 

12  shall  sprinkle  his  blood  round  about  upon7  the  altar.  And  he1'  shall  cut  it  into  his 
pieces,  with  his  head  and  his  fat :  and  the  priest  shall  lay  them  in  order  on  the 

13  wood  that  is  on  the  fire  which  is  upon  the  altar :  but  he  shall  wash  the  inwards  and 
the  leo-s  with  water :  and  the  priest  shall  bring  it  all,  and  burn  it  upon  the  altar : 
it  is  a  burnt  sacrifice,  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord. 

14  And  if  the  burnt  sacrifice  for  his  offering  to  the  Lord  be  of  fowls,  then  he  shall 

15  bring  his  offering  of  turtledoves,  or  of  young  pigeons.  And  the  priest  shall  bring 
it  unto  the  altar,  and  wring  [pinch]  off  his  head,  and  burn  it  on  the  altar  ;  and  the 

16  blood  thereof  shall  be  wrung  out  at  [pressed  out  against]  the  side  of  the  altar  :  and 
he  shall  pluck  away  his  crop  with  his  feathers  [the  filth  thereof16],  and  cast  it  beside 

17  the  altar  on  the  east  part,  by  the  place  of  the  ashes :  and  he  shall  cleave  it  with  the 
•wings  thereof,  bid™  shall  not  divide  it  asunder  :  and  the  priest  shall  burn  itupon  the 
altar,  upon  the  wood  that  is  upon  the  fire :  it  is  a  burnt  sacrifice,  and  offering  made 
by  fire,  of  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord. 

Vulg.,  and  followed  by  the  A.  V.    Houbigant  suggests  that  it  should  rather  be  placed  on  the  next  word,  rTDHSn  as  in 

the  Syr.    The  latter  sense  is  followed  in  the  commentary. 

*  Vcr.  2.  "  Offerings  "  in  the  plural  is  read  in  the  Sam.,  LXX.,  Vulg.,  and  Syr. 

8  Ver.  3.  rUD'  'jaS  "Ui'lS.  Tue  translation  of  the  A.  V.  is  defended  by  Grotius,  but  most  interpreters  follow  the 
nnanimons  voice  of  the  ancient  versions  in  giving  the  sense  as  corrected  above.  Comp.  Ex.  xxviii.  3S ;  Lev.  xxii.  20,  21,  etc. 
The  A.  V.  varies  in  the  translation  even  in  the  same  passage,  as  Lev.  xxii.  10,  20,  21,  29. 

'  Ver  5    The  6ense  is,  upou  all  the  sides  of  the  altar,  not  on  its  upper  surface. 

8  Ver.  6.  The  Sam.  and  LXX.  by  reading  the  verbs  of  this  verse  in  the  plural,  apparently  make  the  flaying  and  cutting 
up  of  the  victim  the  act  of  the  priests. 

6  Ver.  9.  The  Sam.  and  the  LXX.  here  also,  by  the  use  of  the  plural,  make  the  washing  the  act  of  the  priests. 

10  Vcr.  9.  The  Sam.  followed  by  the  LXX.  and  Syr.,  read   N'H    nSj?  =  this  is  the  burnt-offering,  ».  c,  the  law  of  the 

11  v™10?'The  Sam.  followed  by  the  LXX.  reads  rfirvS    U3"lp    rh'J    ?N2jn-p-DNl,  the  Sam.  omitting  the 

T   :  -         t:It       t        1        -I-        •: 
subsequent  p  /J.\  which  makes  the  sense  clearer. 

n  Ver.  10.  The  Sum.  adds— at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  shall  he  offer  it. 

is  Ver.  11.  The  LXX.  prefixes  from  ver.  t,  itai  ^irifojo-ti  iV  \eipo  si"  iV  ne<t>a\riv  aiiTOv— which  is  of  course  to  be 
understood. 

»  Ver.  12.  The  Sam.  (now  followed  both  by  the  LXX.  and  the  Vulg.)  here  again  as  in  vers.  6  and  9  reads  the 
plural. 

is  Ver.  16.  nr>S}3  (Sam.  1]"|— ~)  is  variously  translated.  In  the  LXX.  and  Vnlg.,  as  in  the  A.  V.,  it  is  rendered  fea- 
llicrs;  in  the  S.miT  Vers.,  however,  the  Chatd.  of  Onkelos,  of  Jonathan,  and  of  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  Syr.,  the  id.  a  is  Ou 
food  in  On  crop,  or  the  filth  connected  therewith,  as  is  expressed  in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  By  Qesemus  and  Puerst  It 
is  translated  as  filth  or  excrement  in  the  crop;  they  consider  it  a  contracted  form  of  Part.  Niph.  of  Si"'-    This  is  probably 

the  true  sense.    Lange  explains  it  "  the  excrement  from  the  crop  yet  to  be  found  in  the  body." 

i«  Ver.  17.  The  Sam.,  15  MSS.,  and  all  the  versions  supply  the  conjunction,  which  must  of  cou-se  be  understood. 


CHAP.  I.  1-17. 


23 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

The  Divine  presence  having  now  been  mani- 
fested in  the  newly  erected  tabernacle  (Ex.  xl. 
34),  God  according  to  His  promise  (Ex.  xxv.  22), 
there  reveals  Himself  to  Moses,  and  makes  known 
through  him  His  will  to  the  people.  As  this  was 
the  place  where  they  were  to  draw  nigh  to  Him, 
the  first  commands  uttered  from  the  tabernacle 
relate  to  the  means  of  this  approach,  and  occupy 
the  first  sixteen  chapters  of  Leviticus.  Of  these, 
seven  are  concerned  with  the  general  laws  of 
sacrifice,  of  which  it  would  appear  some  know- 
ledge must  have  been  previously  communicated 
to  Moses  to  make  the  directions  of  Ex.  xxix.  in- 
telligible to  him,  and  also  to  guide  him  in  the 
sacrifices  offered  by  himself,  Ex.  xl.  28,  29 ;  but 
now  for  the  first  time  he  is  directed  to  proclaim 
these  laws  to  the  people.  The  law  is  first  de- 
clared in  regard  to  the  people's  part  in  the  offer- 
jng3  ij. — yi.  7),  although  this  involves  incident- 
ally something  also  of  the  duties  of  the  priests  ; 
this  is  followed  by  special  instructions  chiefly 
for  the  priests  (vi.  8 — vii.  38),  although  the  line 
cannot  be  so  sharply  drawn  that  this  part  shall 
not  also  contain  something  for  the  people.  Each 
kind  of  offering  is  treated  by  itself,  the  first  chap- 
ter being  occupied  with  the  whole  burnt-offering, 
which  must  always  be  an  animal,  but  might  be 
either  a  quadruped  (2-13),  or  a  fowl  (14-17). 
The  former  again,  might  be  either  "  of  the  herd," 
i.  e.,  a  bullock  (3-9),  or  "of  the  flock,"  i.e.,  a. 
sheep  or  a  goat  (10-13).  The  directions  for  burnt- 
sacrifices  are  arranged  under  these  three  heads. 
Ver.  1.  The  Lord. — Jehovah  is  the  distinc- 
tive Divine  title  throughout  Leviticus  ;  the  names 
'J^S  (occurring  so  frequently  elsewhere),   'TO, 

and  the  very  common  7N  do  not  occur,  nor  even 
the  ordinary  D'ii/X,  except  the  last  joined  with 
a  possessive  pronoun  or  some  other  construc- 
tion, to  mark  Him  as  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  God 
of  Israel. 

Out  of  the  tabernacle  of  congregation. 
— There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  this 
is  the  newly-erected  tabernacle;  the  attempt  to 
prove  that  these  laws  were  given  from  some 
other  tent  upon  the  slopes  of  Ml.  Sinai  by  refe- 
rence to  Lev.  vii.  38,  has  no  foundation,  as  the 
parallelism  of  that  ver.  shows  that  mount  is  there 
only  another  expression  for  the  place  called  the 
wilderness  of  Sinai. 

"  Ver.  2  ss.  The  common  regulations  concerning 
all  the  sacrifices.  The  whole  motive  of  animal 
sacrifice  is  appropriately  exhibited  in  the  verb 
3"lp  to  draw  near;  in  the  Hiphil  to  cause  to  draw 
near.  The  sense  of  the  word  is  fully  shown  in 
Jer.  xxx.  21.  Sinful  man,  as  such,  dares  not 
draw  near  to  Jehovah.  But  Jehovah  forms  one 
chosen  out  of  His  people  (the  Messiah)  for  the 
purpose  of  approach,  until  he  draws  nearest  of 
all  to  Him,  touches  Him,  yields  up  himself  to 
Him,  and  becomes  one  with  Him.  With  reve- 
rent dread  man,  conscious  of  sin,  pushes  forward 
the  guiltless  animal  as  an  offering  of  drawing 
near  ( Korban),  as  a  symbol  of  his  desire  to  draw 
near  himself  to  Jehovah.  As  yet  the  sacrifice 
was  not  commanded  in  its  particulars  ;  but  the 
general  idea  of  sacrifice  as  now  necessary  was 


commanded,  and  in  every  case  it  must  be  of  the 
cattle,  either  large  or  small,  and  thus  of  the 
clean  domestic  animals.  The  subsequent  addi- 
tion of  pigeons  and  turtle-doves  are  as  substi- 
tutes." Lange. 

If  any  man  of  you  bring. — The  sacrifices 
of  the  first  three  chapters  were  those  of  indivi- 
duals, and  were  purely  voluntary  in  so  far  as 
respects  their  being  offered  at  all ;  when,  how- 
ever, the  individual  had  determined  to  offer  any 
of  them,  the  instructions  as  to  the  selection  of 
the  victim,  and  the  manner  of  offering,  were  mi- 
nute and  peremptory.  The  duty  of  the  priests 
in  regard  to  these  offerings  was  simply  minis- 
terial. 

Offering. — |3"?Pi  always  translated  by  the 
LXX.  Sapnv,  and  most  frequently  by  the  Vulg. 
oblatio.  Except  in  two  instances  in  Ezek.  (xx. 
28;  xl.  43),  and  in  two  of  the  same  consonants 
differently  pointed  in  Neh.  (x.  34  (35)  ;  xiii.  31), 
its  use  is  confined  to  Lev.  and  Num.  It  is  the 
technical  word  for  an  offering  to  the  Lord,  in- 
cluding sacrifices  both  bloody,  as  here,  and  un- 
bloody as  in  ch.  ii.,  and  also  dedicatory  offerings 
for  the  sanctuary,  as  in  Num.  vii. 

Ye  shall  bring. — The  Rabbins  infer  from 
this  use  of  the  plural  that  two  or  more  persons 
might  unite  in  the  same  offering.  This  was  un- 
doubtedly the  fact ;  but  does  not  seem  to  be  the 
reason  for  the  use  of  the  plural  here,  which  is 
rather  required  simply  by  the  generality  of  the 
law.  Comp.  ii.  11,  12,  etc. 

Of  the  cattle  unto  the  Lord. — The  Maso- 
retic  punctuation  must  here  be  modified  in  order 
to  represent  the  systematic  arrangement  in- 
tended. See  Textual  Note  4.  The  rnH3  = 
quadruped,  is  in  contradistinction  to  the  fowls 
of  ver.  14;  and  the  direction  is  that  if  an  offer- 
ing of  this  kind  be  brought,  it  shall  be  taken 
from  the  herd  or  the  flock,  not  from  wild  ani- 
mals. The  word  sometimes  includes  all  quad- 
rupeds, wild  and  tamo  (Gen.  vi.  7  ;  Ex.  ix.  25, 
etc.),  but  is  more  commonly  used,  according  to 
the  restriction  here,  of  the  domestic  animals.  It 
includes  both  the  herd  and  the  flock.  The  range 
of  animals  allowed  for  sacrifice  was  much  nar- 
rower than  that  of  those  clean  for  food,  and  far 
narrower  than  among  the  heathen.  See  Knobel, 
p.  352.  The  Egyptians,  among  other  victims, 
offered  swine,  and  the  Hindoos  and  Germans, 
horses. 

Vers.  3-9.  The  law  of  the  burnt-offering  of  a 

bullock,  vhy  =  whole  burnt-offering.     Lange  : 

"  The  names :  nSj?  the  going  up  (in  a  specific 
sense,  for  all  sacrifices  were  brought  up  on 
the  altar),  7'73  the  whole,  the  entirely  finished, 
consumed,  burned,  holocaustum.  Thus  the  burnt- 
offering,  or  the  fire-offering  in  the  most  especial 
sense,  which  was  entirely  consumed  in  the  fire, 
forms  the  central  point  of  the  whole  sacrificial 
system."  "  The  New  Testament  antitype  of  the 
burnt-offering  is  expressed  by  Paul  in  Rom.  xii. 
1."  See  the  preliminary  note  on  sacrifices,  p.  12. 
Ver.  3.  A  male. — The  burnt-offering,  unlike 
the  sin  and  peace-offering,  must  always  be  a 
male.     The  case  of  the  cows  offered  in  1  Sam. 


24 


LEVITICUS. 


vi.  14,  was  altogether  exceptional,  and  the  red 
heifer  (Num.  xix.  1-10)  was  not  burned  upon  the 
altar  at  all. — Without  blemish,  LXX.,  a/ua- 
/ioc.  The  bullock,  like  all  other  victims,  (xxii. 
19-24)  except  in  the  case  of  free  will  offerings, 
must  be  free  from  bodily  faults  either  of  defect 
or  redundancy  ;  and  it  was  provided  that  no 
victim  obtained  by  the  price  of  a  dog,  or  of 
whoredom,  might  be  offered  to  God  (Deut.  xxiii. 
18).  It  was  the  Jewish  custom  to  appoint  a 
priest  as  a  special  inspector  of  victims,  to  whose 
scrutiny  every  animal  must  be  subjected  before 
being  offered. — At  the  door. — At  the  wide  en- 
trance of  the  court  in  which  the  great  altar  stood. 
Lange,  however,  considers  that  the  door  "  not 
of  the  court,  but  of  the  Holy  Place,  is  the  bound- 
ary between  the  holy  things  and  the  region  of 
that  to  be  hallowed,  and  therefore  the  appropri- 
ate point  for  the  meeting  which  in  the  name  of 
Jehovah  was  obtained  by  the  priests  for  the 
people  through  the  sacrifice."  This  presentation 
of  the  victim  before  the  Lord  was  the  technical 
offering,  so  essential  a  part  of  the  sacrifice  that 
it  is  often  put  for  the  sacrifice  itself.  The  de- 
tails of  the  sacrifice  were  so  ordered  that  when 
occasion  required,  great  multitudes  of  victims 
might  be  offered  quickly  and  without  confusion. 
After  the  erection  of  the  temple,  rings  were  fixed 
in  the  pavement,  to  which  the  victims  were  se- 
cured ;  with  a  sharp  knife  the  throat  was  then 
cut  at  one  stroke  quite  through  the  arteries  and 
the  jugular  veins,  so  that  the  blood  might  flow 
rapidly  into  a  vessel  held  underneath ;  this  ves- 
sel was  then  (when  there  were  many  sacrifices) 
passed  from  hand  to  hand  by  a  row  of  priests 
and  Levites  extending  to  the  altar;  meantime 
the  flaying  and  cutting  up  of  the  victim  was  go- 
ing on  ;  on  the  north  side  of  the  altar  there  were 
eight  stone  pillars  connected  by  three  rows  of 
beams,  each  bearing  a  row  of  hooks ;  upon  these 
the  victims  were  hung,  the  largest  upon  the  high- 
est hooks,  the  smaller  upon  the  others.  Outram 
I.,  xvi.,  and  the  authorities  there  cited.  By 
such  means  an  almost  incredible  number  of  vic- 
tims are  said  to  have  been  sacrificed  with  perfect 
order  in  a  short  time. — For  his  acceptance 
before  the  Lord. — It  was  the  object  of  the 
burnt-offering,  as  of  all  sacrifices,  to  secure  to 
the  offerer  the  good  pleasure  of  God.  How  far 
the  burnt-offering  partook  of  a  strictly  expiatory 
character  has  already  been  discussed  in  the  pre- 
liminary essay  ;  but  that  this,  with  all  other  vo- 
luntary offerings,  sprang  from  a  sense  of  need 
on  the  part  of  the  worshipper,  and  a  desire  by 
some  means  to  draw  nearer  to  God,  there  can  be 
no  doubt.  This  expression,  however,  as  Knobel 
notes,  is  never  used  in  connection  with  the  sin- 
offering,  whose  peculiar  office  was  to  obtain  the 
pardon,  rather  than  the  gracious  favor  of  God. 
Lange  :  "  The  sacrifices  follow  one  another  in  a 
natural  sequence.  The  burnt-offering  denotes 
the  giving  up  of  life  to  God;  the  meat-offering, 
the  giving  up  of  life's  enjoyment.  Both  were 
offered  for  a  covering  for  the  universal  sinful- 
ness of  man.  Only  the  expiatory  sacrifices  re- 
late to  particular  sins." 

Ver.  4.  And  he  shall  put  his  hand  upon 
the  head. — This  solemn  and  essential  part  of 
the  ceremonial  is  always  specified  when  the  law 
is  given  in  detail,  not  only  in  connection  with 


the  burnt-offerings,  but  also  with  the  peace- 
offerings  (iii.  2,  8,  13),  and  the  sin-offerings  (iv. 
4,  15,  24,  29,  33)  ;  where  in  the  brevity  of  the 
description  it  is  omitted  (ver.  11,  ch.  v.  6,  15,  18,) 
it  is  yet  to  be  understood.  Ab  to  the  signi- 
ficance of  the  act,  a  great  variety  of  opinions  has 
been  held ;  by  many,  both  of  the  ancients  and 
moderns,  it  has  been  understood  to  symbolize 
the  transfer  of  his  sins  from  the  offerer  to  the 
victim,  or  the  substitution  of  the  victim  to  die  in 
his  stead  (Theodoret,  Qusest.  61  in  Ex.,  and 
many  others).  Thisviewhas  countenance  from  the 
laying  on  of  both  the  hands  of  the  high-priest  on 
the  head  of  the  scape-goat  on  the  day  of  atonement 
(xvi.  21)  for  the  express  purpose  of  "  putting  all 
their  sins  upon  the  head  of  the  goat,"  that  he 
might  "  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniquities  unto 
aland  not  inhabited;"  but  the  ritual  is  here 
very  different,  and  this  goat  was  not  burned  upon 
the  altar.  On  the  other  hand  in  the  case  of  the 
blasphemer  who  was  to  be  stoned  (xxiv,  14),  all 
the  witnesses  were  to  lay  their  hands  upon  his 
head,  clearly  not  for  the  purpose  of  transferring 
their  sins  to  him.  By  others  the  act  has  been 
regarded  as  a  surrender  and  dedication  of  the 
offerer's  property  to  God ;  by  still  others  as  a 
dedication  of  himself  through  the  victim  repre- 
senting him ;  Lange:  "The  laying  (pressing) 
on  of  the  hand  has  the  effect  of  substituting  in  a 
typical  sense  the  animal  to  be  offered  for  the 

offerer  (for  him  17).  It  denotes  the  transferring 
of  the  individual  life  to  the  offering  in  a  symbo- 
lical sense,  not  merely  the  giving  up  of  this  pos- 
session (as  a  gift)  to  Jehovah."  Various  other 
views  also  have  been  advocated.  None  of  them, 
however,  can  claim  exclusively  the  sanction  of 
Scripture,  which  prescribes  the  act,  but  does  not 
define  its  significance.  Neither  do  any  of  them 
rest  upon  evidence  independent  of  preconceived 
views,  and  of  the  doctrinal  interpretation  of 
other  Scriptures.  This  much  will  be  generally 
admitted:  That  the  act  connected  the  offerer 
personally  with  the  victim,  and  denoted  that  his 
sacrifice  was  offered  solemnly  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  to  himself  that  "covering"  or 
atonement  of  which  mention  is  immediately  after- 
wards made.  The  connection  of  the  two  clauses 
shows  that  the  laying  on  of  the  hand  was  directly 
connected  with  this  atonement.  It  was  certainly 
an  expression  of  faith  in  the  use  of  the  means 
God  had  appointed  for  drawing  near  to  Him,  and 
the  act  may  be  beyond  the  reach  of  a  closer 
analysis. 

Accepted — the  word  is  of  the  same  root  and 
sense  as  in  ver.  3.  ,  , 

To  make  atonement  for  him. — V1]J  1337. 
This  verb  is  not  used  in  the  Kal.  In  the  Piel 
the  primary  sense  is  to  cover,  and  hence  to  alone 
for.  It  is  used  sometimes  simply  with  the  accus. 
of  the  thing  (Ps.  lxv.  4;  lxxviii.   38;  Dan.  ix. 

24),  but  usually  with  7j£  of  the  thing  (Ps.  lxxix. 
9;  Jer.  xviii.  23,  etc.),  or  of  the  person  (ch. 
xix.  22),  or  with  both  (ch.  v.  18)  ;  less  frequently 
with  7,  and  more  rarely  with  7JJ  of  the  person 
and  P  of  the  thing  (iv.  26,  etc.) ;  seldom  with 
3  of  the  thing  (ch.  xvii.  11).  The  phrase  is  used 
chiefly  in  reference   to   the   sin   and   trespass- 


CHAP.  I.  1-17. 


25 


offerings  (chs.  iv.,  v.,  vi. )  and  but  rarely  in  con- 
nection with  the  burnt-offerings.  It  is  here  used 
in  connection  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hand  of 
the  offerer,  not  as  in  the  case  of  the  sin-offering 
(iv.  20,  26,  35)  and  the  trespass-offering  (v.  6,  10, 
13,  18;  vi.  7,  etc.),  with  the  act  of  the  priest, 
although  in  all  cases  the  mediatorial  function  of 
the  priest  was,  as  here,  necessarily  involved. 

Ver.  5.  He  shall  kill.— The  killing,  skin- 
ning, washing  and  preparation  of  the  victim, 
were  the  duty  of  the  offerer,  or,  according  to 
Outram,  of  some  clean  person  appointed  by  him. 
Lange  :  "  This  is  also  an  expression  of  the  free- 
will of  the  sacrificer.  He  must  indeed  slay  his 
own  offering  himself,  just  as  the  devout  can  offer 
his  will  to  God  only  in  free  self-determination. 
Only  false  priests  took  the  sacrifice  by  craft  or 
force  into  the  court,  and  slew  it  themselves,  or 
had  it  slain  at  their  command."  The  functions 
of  the  priest  were  concerned  with  the  presenta- 
tion and  sprinkling  of  the  blood,  and  the  burning 
of  the  victim  upon  the  altar.  In  the  case,  how- 
ever, of  national  offerings,  the  offerer's  part  also 
was  undertaken  by  the  priests  assisted  by  the 
Levites  (2  Chr.  xxix.  21,  34),  apparently  not  in 
consequence  of  their  office,  but  as  representa- 
tives of  the  whole  people.  So  also  in  the  case 
of  the  Passovers  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxx.  17) 
and  of  Josiah  lib.  xxxv.  10,  11)  the  Levites 
performed  these  duties  on  behalf  of  the  people, 
because  many  of  them  were  disqualified  by  un- 
cleanness.  Hence,  as  appears  in  the  ancient 
versions,  there  has  arisen  a  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  the  part  performed  by  the  offerer. 

Kill. — Or\'d  is  a  general  word  exactly  ren- 
dered, and  is  frequently  used  for  killing  in  sa- 
crifice. It  does  not  therefore  need  to  be  changed. 
The  technical  word  used  only  for  sacrifice  is 
n3T,  while  fi'pn  =  to  put  to  death  is  never  used 
in  this  connection. 

The  bullock. — 1p3  [3  =  lit.,  son  of  an  ox, 
applied  to  a  calf  (ix.  2)  and  to  a  mature  young 
bull  (13  iv.  3,  14). 

Before  the  Lord — ;'.  e.,  in  immediate  view 
of  the  place  where  His  presence  was  especially 
manifested.  Knobel  (in  loco)  notes  how  the 
slaughtering  of  the  victim  where  it  might  be  con- 
sidered iv  btpfiaX/iolc  tov  Oeov  was  provided  for 
among  the  heathen. 

And  the  priests. — With  the  blood  began  the 
exclusively  priestly  functions.  In  the  case  of 
very  numerous  sacrifices  the  Levites  might  catch 
the  blood  and  pass  it  to  the  priests  (2  Chr.  xxx. 
16).  but  the  "sprinkling"  was  always  done  by 
the  priests  alone. 

Sprinkle. — The  word  \>y  is  a  different  one 
from  the  HIJ  (more  common  in  the  Hiphil  form 
riTH)  generally  used  of  sprinkling  with  the  finger 
or  with  hyssop,  and  refers  to  the  throwing  of  the 
blood  by  a  jerk  against  the  sides  of  the  altar  from 
the  P"1!"?  or  bowl  in  which  the  blood  of  the  vic- 
tim was  caught.  Rosenmiiller  shows  that  the 
word  cannot  be  translated,  as  some  would  have 
it.  by  po'ir.  The  LXX.  usually,  but  not  always, 
renders  the  former  by  irpoaxetv,  the  latter  by 
pahe/f.  There  seems,  however,  no  sufficient  rea- 
son for  changing  the  translation  of  the  A.  V. 
17 


The  priest  was  to  sprinkle  the  blood  against  all 
the  sides  of  the  altar  ;  and  this  was  doue,  ac- 
cording to  Jewish  tradition,  by  throwing  it  from 
the  bowl  successively  against  the  opposite  cor- 
ners of  the  altar,  so  that  it  sprinkled  against 
each  of  the  adjoining  sides.  The  same  law  held 
for  the  peace-offerings  (iii.  2,  8,  13  ;  ix.  18),  and 
trespass-offerings  (vii.  2)  ;  but  not  for  the  sin- 
offering  (iv.  5-7).  Lange :  "  The  blood  is  the  sym- 
bol of  the  spiritual  life  which  is  given  up  to 
Jehovah  (at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation)  but  which  may  not  be  consumed 
with  the  body  of  mortality  by  the  fire  of  God's 
appointment.  As  it  is  said  that  it  is  '  to  be 
brought  up,'  it  follows  that  the  slaying  belougs 
between  the  altar  and  the  door  of  the  court, 
where  the  station  of  the  sacrificer  is.  That  it 
must  be  poured  out  on  the  altar  before  the  burnt- 
offering  can  be  kindled,  tells  us  plainly  that  no 
offering  up  of  life  or  body  is  profitable  unless  the 
soul  has  first  been  given  to  Jehovah.  Hut  this 
has  been  given  up  to  the  God  of  the  altar,  not 
surrendered  to  the  altar -fire  to  destroy  or 
change." 

Before  the  door  of  the  tabernacle. — The 
altar  was  in  full  view  of  the  gate-way  or  door, 

as  it  is  expressed  Ex.  xl.  6  nH3   '33 7. 

Ver.  6.  He  shall  flay. — The  offerer  skinned 
the  animal,  and  the  skin  was  (he  perquisite  of 
the  officiating  priest  (vii.  8).  Kalisch,  however, 
says  that  "  the  flaying  was  probably  performed 
by  a  Levite  under  the  directiou  of  the  officiating 
priest."  Lange  says,  "  With  the  slaying  the 
life  departs,  with  the  skin  goes  the  old  appear- 
ance of  life,  under  the  conventionally  commanded 
division  disappears  also  the  old  figure  of  life,  in 
the  burning  disappears  the  substance  of  the  body 
itself.  Only  the  blood,  the  soul,  does  not  disap- 
pear, but  passes  through  the  purifying  prot 
of  sacrifice,  and  goes  hence  into  the  invisible, 
to  God.  The  pouring  out  of  the  blood  at  the 
foot  of  the  altar  round  about,  can  in  no  case 
mean  'the  convenient  disposal  of  the  blood.' 
The  blood  goes  through  the  sanctified  earth  to 
God." 

Cut  it  into  his  pieces — i.  e.,  properly  divide 
it  according  to  custom. 

Vers.  7-9.  The  priests. — We  here  again 
come  upon  those  essential  parts  of  the  sacrifice 
which  could  be  performed  by  the  priests  alone. 
The  direction  to  put  fire  upon  the  altar  is  under- 
stood by  Knobel  and  others  to  refer  only  to  the 
first  sacrifice  upon  the  newly-erected  altar,  as  it 
was  required  afterwards  (vi.  13)  that  the  fire 
should  be  kept  always  burning  upon  the  altar  ; 
or  it  may  be  understood  of  so  arranging  the  fire 
— when  not  in  use,  raked  together — as  to  con- 
sume the  sacrifice.  The  head  is  especially  men- 
tioned in  order  that  the  whole  animal  may  be 
expressly  included,  since  it  would  not  be  con- 
sidered one  of  the  "pieces"  into  which  the  ani- 
mal was  divided.  The  fat  "H3  used  only  in  con- 
nection with  burnt-offerings  (vers.  8,  12;  viii. 
20)  probably  means  the  fat  separated  from  the 
entrails  and  taken  out  to  wash.  Boohart,  adeps 
a  came  sejunctus.  All  was  to  be  laid  in  nrd-r  upon 
the  wood  ;  everything  about  the  sacrifice  rmi-t 
have  that  method  and  regard  to  propriety  be- 
coming in  an  act  of  worship.     According  to  Jew- 


26 


LEVITICUS. 


ish  writers,  the  parts  were  so  laid  upon  one  an- 
other as  lo  have  the  same  relative  positions  as  in 
the  living  animal.    Outram  T.  lti,  \  13. 

His  inwards  and  his  legs,  which  were  to 
be  washed,  are  generally  understood  of  the  lower 
viscera  and  the  legs,  especially  the  hind  legs, 
beluw  tlie  knee:  it  is  doubt  I'ul  whether  the  wash- 
ing was  required  for  the  heart,  tbe  lungs  and  the 
liver — LXX.  e}noi?ua  nal  ol  ttocUc;  Vulg.,  intes- 
tina  el  pedes.  Lange:  "Head  and  Fat.  The 
knowledge  of  earth  and  its  prosperity  must  first 
pas-  into  the  fiery  death;  luen  also  the  purified 
organs  of  growth,  nourishment,  and  motion." 

Shall  burn. — "Ctpprt  =  to  cause  to  ascend  in 
smoke,  as  incense.  The  word  is  used  only  of  the 
burning  of  incense,  of  the  sacred  lamps,  and  of 
sacrifices,  and  is  a  very  different  one  from  rpp 
the  word  for  common  burning,  which  is  applied 
to  the  victims,  or  parts  of  victims  burned  with- 
out the  camp  (iv.  12,  21,  etc.).  It  connects  the 
bloody  sacrifice  with  the  incense,  and  shows  that, 
the  object  of  the  burning  was  not  to  destroy  the 
victim,  but  rather,  as  declared  just  below,  to 
cause  its  essence  to  ascend  as  a  sweet  savor  unto 
God. 

An  offering  made  by  fire. — ITOX  a  word 
applied  exclusively  to  sacrifices  (although  some- 
times to  the  parts  of  them  eaten  by  the  priests. 
Dent,  xviii.  1;  Josh.  xiii.  14),  in  xxiv.  7  applied 
to  the  incense  laid  upon  the  shew  bread.  The 
appearance  of  tautology,  hardly  to  be  avoided  in 
the  translation,  does  not  exist  in  the  original. 
The  word  is  usually  associated,  as  here,  with  the 
phrase  "  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord" 
(LXX.  oa/u/  cvuiViac).  This  phrase  is  applied  to 
all  sacrifices,  hut  belongs  peculiarly  to  the  burnt- 
offering;  as  the  phrase  to  make  atonement 'belongs 
peculiarly,  but  not  exclusively,  to  the  sin  offer- 
ing. Its  intent  is  plainly  to  describe  the  divine 
pleasure  in  the  sacrifice  offered.  Theodoret 
( Qusest.  02  in  Ex.) :  "  By  human  things  he  teaches 
Divine.  As  we  delight  in  sweet  odors,  so  he 
calls  the  sacrifice  made  according  to  the  law  a 
sweet  savor.  But  that  this  is  not  to  be  taken  in 
the  naked  letter  is  shown  both  by  the  Divine  na- 
ture which  is  incorporeal,  and  by  the  ill  smell 
of  the  burnt  bones.  For  what  can  smell  worse 
thtin  these?"  Lange:  "The  conception  is  not 
exhausted  in  the  conception  of  a  sweet,  pleasant 
smell.  As  in  a  pictorial  sense,  anger  is  repre- 
sented by  the  snorting  of  the  nostrils,  so  the  re- 
signation of  self  to  God  and  His  rule  is  called  a 
savor  well-pleasing  to  the  nose." 

Vers.  10-13.  Tlieburnt-offering  from  the  flock. 
The  law  here  being  essentially  the  same  as  for 
the  bullock  is  more  briefly  given,  except  in  re- 
gard to  the  place  of  slaying.  The  offering  might 
be  either  from  the  sheep  or  goats,  but  the  former 
were  probably  more  esteemed. 

Ver.  11.  On  the  side  of  the  altar  north- 
ward.— So  also  the  table  of  shew-bread  with 
the  continual  meat-offering  stood  on  the  north 
side  of  the  holy  place  (Ex.  xxvi.  35)  The  east 
side  of  the  altar  was  the  place  for  the  heap  of 
ashes  on  the  Bld«  towards  the  door  by  which  they 
must  be  carried  out  ;  the  west  side  would  have 
been  inconvenient,  being  towards  the  holy  place 
with  (he  laver  between;  the  south  side  had  pro- 
bably (as  Josephus  says  was  the  case  in  the  se- 


cond temple,  Bell.  Jud.  V.  5,  6,  nrrd  pEC-nfippiac 
k'  ahrbv  avodnc)  the  ascent  to  the  altar  which 
must  be  kept  clear;  so  that  the  north  side  alone 
remaiued.  Lange:  "Death  is  something  be- 
longing to  the  mytderious  night,  and  belongs  as 
a  night  side  of  life,  to  the  night-side  of  the  earth ; 
just  as  also  the  priestly  eating  of  the  shew-bread 
must  be  considered  as  a  night  meal."  In  the 
same  place  were  also  to  be  slain  the  sin-offerings 
(iv.  24,  29,  33)  and  the  trespass-offerings  (vii.  2). 
There  being  ample  room  in  the  court  for  the  sa- 
crifice of  the  smaller  victims,  which  also  required 
less  time  in  their  preparation,  they  were  killed 
near  the  altar  instead  of  at  the  door.  Nothing 
is  said  of  the  peace-offerings  which,  according  to 
Mislina,  might  he  killed  in  any  part  of  the  court. 
When  not  too  numerous,  however,  they  would 
have  been  more  conveniently  slain  in  the  same 
place. 

Ver  12.  His  head,  etc. — is  to  be  connected 
per  zeugma  with  he  shall  cut,  i.  p.,  he  shall  cut 
it  into  his  pieces  and  (sever)  his  bead  and 
his  fat. 

Vers.  14-17.  The  burnt-offering  of  fowls. 
From  chap.  v.  7-11  ;  xii.  8,  it  is  probable  that 
this  offering  was  for  those  who  were  unable  to 
bring  the  more  costly  offerings.  It  might  be 
either  of  turtledoves,  or  of  young  pigeons;  but 
only  one  bird  was  required.  The  turtledoves 
(turtur  auritus)  appear  in  vast  numbers  in  Pales- 
tine early  in  April,  and  are  easily  captured; 
later  in  the  season  they  entirely  disappear.  The 
common  pigeon  has  been  bred  in  the  country 
from  time  immemorial,  and  also  is  found  wild, 
at  all  seasons,  in  great  abundance ;  but  when  full- 
grown  is  difficult  of  capture.  It  has,  however, 
in  the  course  of  the  year,  several  broods  of  two 
each,  which  may  be  easily  taken  on  the  nest. 
Hence,  in  the  case  of  the  pigeon,  the  mention  of 
tbe  age.  Knobel  observes  that  the  allowing  of 
doves  or  pigeons  in  sacrifice  was  quite  excep- 
tional among  the  ancient  Orientals,  and  distin- 
guished the  Hebrew  law  from  others.  We  have 
then  in  this  a  fresh  instance  of  the  especial  care 
for  the  poor  in  the  Divine  law. 

Ver.  15.  And  the  priest  shall. — Tnthiscase 
the  offerer's  part  must  be  performed  by  the  priest 
to  prevent  the  loss  of  the  small  quantity  of  blood 
contained  in  the  bird.  No  mention  is  made  of 
the  laying  on  of  hands  which  was  perhaps  omit- 
ted on  account  of  the  diminutive  size  of  the 
victim. 

Pinch  off  his  head. — Tnl  occurs  only  here 
and  in  v,  8,  and  its  precise  meaning  has  been 
much  questioned.  In  v.  8  it  is  expressly  limited 
by  the  provision  that,  the  head  was  not  to  be  en- 
tirely separated  from  the  body  in  the  case  of  the 
bird  to  be  eaten  by  the  priest ;  in  regard  to  the 
other  bird  (v.  7,  10),  it.  was  to  be  treated  as  the 
bird  for  a  burnt-offering.  As  there  is  no  such 
limitation  here,  as  it  is  implied  that  the  treat- 
ment, was  different  from  that  of  the  bird  in  v. 
8,  and  as  the  head  was  to  he  immediately  burned 
on  the  altar,  while  something  further  was  to  be 
done  to  the  body,  the  precept  must  be  understood 
to  require  an  entire  separation  of  the  head.  So 
Outram,  following  the  Mishna  and  other  Jewish 
authorities.  Lange,  however,  considers  from 
the  analogy  of  v.  8,   that  the  head  was  not  to 


CHAP.  I.  1-17. 


27 


be  d'sjoined  from  the  body.  He  translates  P  {?• 
*'  cleave  in  two,  so  that  death  is  produced  and  the 
blood  can  flow  out  as  from  a  vessel.  The  closely 
related  TIjO  means  apparently  to  tear  off;  the 
closely  related  nj3  means  to  cleave,  cut  into." 
The  LXX.  has  anoKvltytv  in  both  places.  The 
exact  sense  seems  best  expressed  hy  the  margin 
of  the  A.  V. — pinch  off  the  head  with  the  nail. 

Pressed  out  against. — The  small  quantity 
of  bloo  1  made  it  practically  impossible  to  deal 
with   it  as  in  the   case   of  the   larger   sacrifices. 

The  sense  of  1J1  Hi-33  is  that  the   blood  of  the 

t  :  ■ 
bird  should  he  thoroughly  squeezed  out  against 
the  side  of  the  altar. 

Ver.  16.  His  crop  with  its  filth.  The  ob- 
scure word  nnYJ3  has  occasioned  much   differ- 

tt    : 

ence  of  opinion  ;  see  Textual  Notes.  The  ren- 
dering here  given  is  ably  supported  at  length 
by  Kosenmiiller.  This  was  to  be  flung  on  the 
heap  of  ashes  and  refuse  east  of  the  altar. 

Ver.  17.  He  shall  cleave. — The  priest  was 
to  split  the  bird  open,  (by  its  wings,  or  by  means 
of  its  outspread  wings,  Lange),  but  so  as  not  to 
separate  the  parts  ;  in  the  same  way  a  fowl  is 
now  prepared  for  broiling.  Lange:  "The  di- 
rection was  given  to  take  the  place,  as  far  as 
possible,  of  the  cutting  in  pieces  of  the  burnt- 
offi'ring,  i.  e.,  the  destruction  of  the  figure  of  the 
body." 

A  sweet  savour. — The  repetition  of  the  same 
words  as  in  ver.  tt  and  ver.  13,  shows  that  this 
humbler  sacrifice  of  the  poor  was  acceptable 
equally  with  the  more  costly  sacrifice  of  the 
rich. 

DOCTRINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

T.  The  offerings  mentioned  in  this  chapter 
were  purely  voluntary;  yet  when  offered,  the 
law  in  regard  'o  them  was  strict  and  sharply 
defined.  In  this  the  Israelites  were  taught 
a  general  principle  of  the  Divine  will.  Who- 
ever seeks  to  draw  near  to  God  must  do  so 
in  the  way  of  God's  own  appointment.  That 
wor-hip  only  is  acceptable  to  Him  which  is  in 
accordance  with  His  will.  Not  that  which  may 
seem  most  effective,  not  that  which  may  be 
thought  best  adapted  to  man's  needs;  but  sim- 
ply that  which  God  approves  may  be  offered  to 
Him. 

II.  These  offerings  must  be  "perfect,"  i.  e., 
without  blemisb,  and  the  most  scrupulous  clean- 
liness  was  required  in  offering  them.  These  re- 
quirements were  of  course  necessary  in  view  of 
the  typical  relation  of  the  sacrifices  to  Christ  ; 
but  they  also  taught  the  general  principle  that 
in  his  offerings  to  God  man  m:iy  not  try  to  put 
off  upon  Him  what  is  of  inferior  value — the  light 
coin,  or  the  scraps  of  unoccupied  time.  God  is 
to  be  served  with  the  best  that  man  can  com- 
mand. And  in  this  service  regard  must  be  had 
to  the  infinite  purity  and  holiness  of  Him  with 
whom  we  have  to  do. 

III.  The  sacrifice  might  not  be  completed  by 
the  offerer.  Man.  being  sinful,  was  unworthy 
to  offer  propitiation  to  God  for  himself.  The 
priest  must   intervene  for   the  sprinkling  of  the 


blood  and  the  burning  of  the  victim.  In  view 
of  the  peculiar  virtue  everywhere  attributed 
to  blood  as  "the  life"  (Gen.  ix.  4,  etc.),  and 
the  especial  office  of  that  "life"  in  connec- 
tion with  the  disturbed  relations  between  God 
and  man  (ch.  xvii.  10-12,  etc.),  and  of  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  priest  to  this  duty,  it  is  plain 
that  he  here  acts  in  a  mediatorial  capacity.  As 
Calvin  (in  loco)  notes,  "ministers  of  reconcilia- 
tion must  be  sought,  made  competent  to  their 
high  function  by  Divine  anointing.  This  points 
to  Christ  not  only  as  the  Victim  offered  for  sin, 
but  also  (as  is  shown  at  length  in  the  Ep.  to  the 
Heb.)  as  Himself  the  Priest."  In  general  it  es- 
tablishes the  principle  that  they  only  may  exer- 
cise authority  on  God's  behalf  whom  He  has 
commissioned  for  the  purpose. 

IV.  In  the  provision  for  a  less  costly  burnt- 
offering,  we  see  that  while  in  His  providence 
God  distributes  unequally  the  means  of  offering 
to  Himself,  He  yet  provides  that  an  equally  ac- 
ceptable offering  shall  be  within  the  reach  of  all. 
The  poor  widow's  two  mites  were  greater  in  His 
eyes  than  the  costly  gifts  of  the  rich.  The  same 
thing  is  true  when  the  propitiatory  character  of 
the  offering  is  considered.  Before  God  all  souls 
are  alike  precious,  and  all  equally  have  the  op- 
portunity of  drawing  near  to  Him. 

V.  In  the  New  Testament  certain  words  and 
phrases  are  applied  to  Christ  which  are  the  Sep- 
tuagint  translations  of  the  technical  words  here 
and  elsewhere  used  of  the  sacrifices.  Thus  He 
is  called  (Eph.  v.  2)  7rpoa<t>opav  koI  flvaiav  r£  6e$ 
etc  oaui/v  riiuSiac,  and  in  Heb.  ii.  17  He  is  said  to 
be  ir/orbc  apx^p^vc  rd  ~pbc,  tov  Veav,  etc  to  IT.aonEG- 
ftat  rrir  il/iapriai;  tov  ^aov,  and  in  1  Jno.  ii.  2.  and 
iv.  10,  He  is  described  as  our  ilaafibc  jrepi  rav 
dftapTiGv.  It  seems  impossible  to  suppose  that 
the  Apostles  could  have  used  these  expressions 
and  others  like  them  without  intending  to  point 
to  Christ  as  the  Antitype  of  the  sacrifices,  and  as 
actually  accomplishing  that  which  they  had  pre- 
figured. From  the  work  of  Christ,  therefore,  in 
effecting  reconciliation  between  God  and  man, 
light  is  thrown  back  upon  the  function  of  the 
sacrifices;  and  that  function  once  established, 
we  may  learn  again  from  the  sacrifices  something 
of  the  nature  of  the  propitiatory  work  of  Christ. 

VI.  Wordsworth  notes  that  a  new  Parashah, 
or  section  of  the  law,  as  read  in  Synagogues, 
begins  at  i.  1,  and  extends  to  vi.  7.  "The  pa- 
rallel Haphtarah,"  or  Section  of  the  Prophets, 
"is  Isa.  xliii.  21 — xliv.  23,  where  God  reproves 
Israel  for  their  neglect  of  His  worship,  and  pro- 
mises them  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  comforts  the 
church  with  the  pledges  of  divine  mercy.  Thus 
the  ancient  Jewish  church,  when  listening  to 
the  law  concerning  offerings  for  sin,  declared  its 
faith  in  a  better  Covenant,  and  in  larger  out- 
pourings of  divine  favor  and  spiritual  grace  in 
Christ." 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

The  course  of  God's  dealings  with  man  always, 
since  man's  fall,  is  to  bring  about  a  closer  com- 
munion with  Himself,  as  man  is  able  to  bear  it. 
The  legislation  from  Mt.  Sinai  was  a  great  ad- 
vance; but  here  there  is  a  fresh  advance.  The 
Divine  voice  calls  no  longer  from  the  Mount,  but 


28 


LEVITICUS. 


from  the  tabernacle  in  the  midst  of  the  congre- 
gation. Thus  another  step  is  taken  towards 
God's  speaking  "  unto  us  by  His  Son." 

Provision  is  made  in  these  three  chapters  for 
voluntary  sacrifices.  The  definitely  prescribed 
duties  of  man  are  always  a  minimum ;  God  re- 
quires of  man  the  absolute  devotion  of  himself 
and  all  that  he  is  and  has  ;  this  is  recognized  in 
the  law  by  the  provision  for  voluntary  sacrifices 
and  free-will-offerings  of  every  kind. 

All  sacrifices  were  types  of  Christ  inasmuch  as 
after  His  sacrifice  all  others  ceased.  Origen. 
No  one  sacrifice  could  express  the  manifoldness 
of  that  which  He  wrought ;  therefore  the  several 
aspects  of  His  work  are  adumbrated  by  various 
types.  In  this  chapter  we  have  the  whole  burnt- 
offering,  the  most  general  and  comprehensive,  as 
the  most  ancient,  of  the  sacrifices ;  it  is  there- 
fore the  one  which  in  the  most  general  way  sets 
forth  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  In  so  far  as  it  be- 
came specialized  by  the  introduction  of  other 
kinds  of  sacrifice,  it  is  thought  to  be  a  symbol 
of  entire  consecration.  It  therefore  typifies  the 
entire  consecration  of  Christ  to  God,  and  through 


Him,  that  of  His  followers,  according  to  the  allu- 
sion in  Rom.  xii.  1,  which  probably  has  this  sa- 
crifice more  particularly  in  view. 

Whatever  is  offered  to  God  must  be  perfect  in 
its  kind.  The  offering  may  be  varied  in  value 
according  to  the  ability  of  the  offerer,  for  all 
souls  are  alike  precious  to  God,  and  He  provides 
that  all  may  be  able  to  draw  near  to  Him.  Still, 
from  the  largest  to  the  smallest  offering,  none 
may  be  allowed  with  blemish  or  defect. 

On  each  sacrifice  the  offerer  must  lay  his 
hands  :  so  must  man  identify  himself  with  what 
he  offers  to  God.  Such  offering  is  a  serious  and 
a  personal  matter,  and  one  may  not  delegate  such 
duty  to  another ;  but  must  give  to  it  personal 
thought  and  care.  Sinful  man  cannot  directly 
approach  the  Majesty  on  high,  before  whom  he 
Btands  as  a  sinner;  he  must  come  through  a  Me- 
diator, typified  of  old  by  the  priest,  and  He 
"  makes  atonement  for  him." 

As  the  law  had  but  "a  shadow  of  good  things 
to  come,"  (Heb.  x.  1),  so  do  they  who  now  con- 
secrate themselves  to  God  offer  that  real  sacri- 
fice which  the  Israelites,  offering  various  animals 
under  the  law,  did  but  prefigure.  Theodoret. 


B.— OBLATIONS  (MEAT-OFFERINGS). 
Chapter  II.  1-16. 

1  And  when  any  [a  soul1]  will  offer  a  meat-offering  [an  offering  of  an  oblation2] 
unto  the  Lord,  his  offering  shall  be  of  fine  flour ;  and  he  shall  pour  oil  upon  it,  and 

2  put  frankincense  thereon  :3  and  he  shall  bring  it  to  Aaron's  sons  the  priests :  and 
ne  shall  take  thereout  his  handful  of  the  flour  thereof,  and  of  the  oil  thereof,  with* 
all  the  frankincense  thereof;  and  the  priest  shall  burn  the  memorial  of  it  upon  the 

3  altar,  to  be  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord  :  and  the 
remnant  of  the  meat-offering  [oblation2]  shall  be  Aaron's  and  his  sons' :  it  is  a  thing 
most  holy  of  the  offerings  of  the  Lord  made  by  fire. 

4  And  if  thou  bring  an  oblation  of  a  meat-offering  [an  offering  of  an  oblation2] 
baken  in  the  oven,  it  shall  be  unleavened  cakes  of  fine  flour  mingled  with  oil,  or 

5  unleavened  wafers  anointed  with  oil.  And  if  thy  oblation  be  a  meat-offering  [otter- 
ing be  an  oblation2]  baken  in  a  pan,  it  shall  be  of  fine  flour  unleavened,  mingled 

6  with  oil.     Thou  shalt5  part  it  in  pieces,  and  pour  oil  thereon :  it6  is  a  meat-offering 


TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  1.  t?23.— As  this  word  is  generally  rendered  a  soul  in  the  A.  V.,  especially  in  the  similar  places,  iv.  2;  v.  1,  2, 
4, 15, 17;  vi.  2,  etc.,  it  seems  better  to  preserve  as  far  as  may  be  uniformity  of  translation. 

2  Ver.  1.  The  words  hero  translated  in  the  A.  V.  meat-offering  are  the  same  as  those  rendered  in  ver.  4  an  oblation  of 
a  meat-offering.  In  this  technical  language  of  the  law  it  is  certainly  desirable  to  preserve  a  strict  consistency  of  transla- 
tion, even  if  it  must  sometimes  cause  an  appearance  of  tautology.  The  word  ]31p  wi"  therefore  be  rendered  throughout 
offering;  gift  might  he  in  itself  considered  a  better  translation;  but  as  it  is  already  rendered  offering  twenty-nine  times  in 
Lev.,  and  almost  universally  (with  only  two  exceptions)  in  Nnm  ,  less  change  is  require  i  to  make  that  translation  umfurm. 
On  the  other  hand  DnjD  is  already  always  in  Lev.  meat-offering  in  the  A.  V.,  and  generally  so  in  Num.;  but  the  sense  of 

meal  has  so  generally  changed  since  that  version  was  made,  that  the  term  had  better  be  replaced.    In  this  book  therefore 
it  will  be  always  rendered  oblation,  as  it  is  in  the  Vulg.  very  frequently  olilatio. 

3  Ver.  1.  The  Sam.  and  LXX.  add  ablatio  est,  i.  e.,  this  is  the  law  of  the  oblation. 

•  Ver.  2.  With :  for  a  similar  construction  of  Sr>,  see  Ex.  xii.  8. 

•  Ver.  6.  nin3 ;  on  this  uso  of  the  Infln.  abs.  coiap.  Ex.  xiii.  3;  xx.  8. 

•  Ver.  6.  The  ancient  form  Nin  is  hero  changed  in  ten  MSB.  and  in  the  Sam.  to  the  later  RTI- 


CHAP.  II.  1-16. 


29 


7  [an  oblation2].     And  if  thy  oblation  be  a  meat-offering  [offering  be  an  oblation2] 
baken  in  the  frying-pan  {boiled  in  the  pot'],  it  shall  be  made  of  fine  flour  with  oil. 

8  And  thou  shalt  bring  the  meat-offering  [oblation2]  that  is  made  of  these  things 
unto  the  Lord  :  and  when  it  is  presented  unto  the  priest,  he  shall  bring8  it  unto 

9  the  altar.     And  the  priest  shall  take  from  the  meat-offering  [oblation2]  a  memorial 
thereof,  and  shall  bum  it  upon  the  altar :  it  is  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet 

10  savour  unto  the  Lord.  And  that  which  is  left  of  thfi  meat-offering  [oblation2]  shall 
be  Aaron's  and  his  sons' :  it  is  a  thing  most  holy  of  the  offerings  of  the  Lord  made 

11  by  fire.  No  meat-offering  [oblation2],  which  ye  shall  bring  unto  the  Lord,  shall 
be  made  with  leaven :  for  ye  shall  burn  no  leaven,  nor  any  honey,  in  any  offering 

12  of  the  Lord  made  by  fire.  As  for  the  oblation  [As  an9  offering2]  of  the  first-fruits, 
ye  shall  offer  them  unto  the  Lord  :  but  they  shall  not  be  burnt  on  the  altar  for  a 

13  sweet  savour.  And  every  oblation  of  thy  meat-offering  [offering  of  thy  oblation2] 
shalt  thou  season  with  salt ;  neither  shalt  thou  suffer  the  salt  of  the  covenant  of 
thy  God  to  be  lacking  from  thy  meat-offering  [oblation2]  :  with  all  thine  offerings 

14  thou  shalt  offer  salt.  And  if  thou  offer  a  meat-offering  [an  oblation2]  of  thy  [the] 
first-fruits  unto  the  Lord,  thou  shalt  offer  for  the  meat-offering  [an  oblation2]  of 
thy  first-fruits,  green  ears  of  corn  [grain10]  dried  [roasted11]  by  the  fire,  even  corn 

15  [grain10]  beaten  out  of  full  ears.     And  thou  shalt  put  oil  upon  it,  and  lay  frankin- 

16  cense  thereon :  it12  is  a  meat-offering  [au  oblation2].  And  the  priest  shall  burn 
the  memorial  of  it,  part  of  the  beaten  corn  [grain10]  thereof,  and  part  of  the  oil 
thereof,  with  all  the  frankincense  thereof:  it  is  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the 
Lord. 

'  Ver.  7.  jltfrm,  derived  (Gesenius,  Fuerat)  from  tyrO.  to  boil  up,  and  interpreted  by  Maimonides,  Knobel,  Keil 

and  others  of  a  pot  or  kettle  for  boiling; — "a  deep  Teasel  suitable  for  boiling  flour  and  other  substances  thoroughly." 
Kaliach. 

»  Ver.  8.    "  C?JJ  in  Uiph.  is  here  used  as  the  enhanced,  second  power  of  3"1p  in  Hiph.  as  in  Jer.  xxx.  21.     Lange. 

9  Ver.  1_.  The  A.  V.  is  singularly  unfortunate;  this  clause  plainly  refers  to  the  leaven  and  honey  of  ver.  11. 
*>  Ver.  14.  Corn  is  in  this  country  so  generally  understood  of  maize  that  it  seems  better  to  substitute  the  more  general 
■word.  , 

u  Ver.  14.  Dried  does  not  sufficiently  give  the  sense  of  *\~)p^=roasUd. 

It 
12  Ver.  15.  Eighteen  MSS.  and  the  Sam  here  again,  as  in  ver.  6,  read  XTI- 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

The  oblation,  or  meat-offering,  naturally  fol- 
lows next  after  the  burnt-offering,  because  it 
was  usually  an  accompaniment  of  that  offering. 
That  it  was  invariahly  so  has  been  often  main- 
tained (Outram,  B'ahr,  Kurtz,  etc.),  and  in- 
deed it  was  always  offered,  and  also  a  drink- 
offering,  with  most  of  the  other  sacrifices  (Num. 
xv.  2-13);  but  from  this  chapter  with  vi.  14, 
and  with  Num.  v.  15,  it  appears  that  the  obla- 
tion might  be  offered  separately,  although  the 
reasons  given  for  this  by  Kalisch  need  not  be 
admitted.  It  is  also  associated  with  the  burnt- 
offering  in  the  generality  of  its  signification  as 
opposed  to  the  more  special  offerings  which  fol- 
low. Lange :  "  It  signifies  not  so  much  resig- 
nation as  giving,  or  a  return,  in  the  sense  of 
childlike  thankfulness,  resignation  of  the  sup- 
port of  life,  of  the  enjoyment  of  life.  Its  motive 
is  not  through  a  divine  demand  as  the  perform- 
ance of  a  duty  or  a  debt,  but  through  an  in- 
stinctive desire  of  communion  with  Jehovah. 
Hence  it  is  here  indeed  the  soul,  !J3J,  that 
brings  the  sacrifice,  not  the  D1X  as  in  the  burnt- 

T  T 

offering :  and  in  spite  of  the  grammatical  equi- 
valence of  both  expressions,  we  must  not  oblite- 
rate  this  distinction."     The  word  iirU"D  itself 

t  :  • 

originally  means  a  present  with  which  one  seeks 
to  obtain  the  favor  of  a  superior  (Gen.  xxxii.  21, 


22;  xliii.  11,  15,  etc.);  then  kot'  kfyxfr',  what 
is  presented  to  God,  a  sacrifice.  At  first  it  was 
used  alike  of  the  bloody  and  the  unbloody  sacri- 
fice (Gen.  iv.  3,  4) ;  but  under  the  law  it  is 
restricted  absolutely  to  bloodless  offerings.  The 
full  expression,  as  in  vers.  1  and  4,  is  \3~}pr 
nnjO,  LXX.  eSwpoK  dvaia,  although  often  either 
Sdpov  or  dvaia  alone.  Besides  the  kinds  of  obla- 
tion mentioned  here,  there  were  others,  as  the 
shew-bread  and  the  jealousy-offering.  With 
those  enumerated  in  this  chapter  salt  was  always 
to  be  used  (ver.  13)  and  oil  (vers.  1,  4-7,  15); 
and  with  those  of  flour  and  grain,  incense  also 
(vers.  1,  15). 

Only  a  handful  of  these  oblations  was  to  be 
burnt  upon  the  altar,  the  rest  being  eaten  by 
the  priests  in  "  a  holy  place."  The  oblation  of 
unprepared  flour  or  of  flour  simply  mingled 
with  oil  (vii.  10)  was  the  common  property  of 
the  priests  (ver.  3) ;  while  that  which  was  cooked 
belonged  to  the  officiating  priest  (vii.  9,  10). 

"  While  the  bloody  sacrifice  is  to  be  purified 
of  its  unclean  portions,  the  unbloody  sacrifice  is 
to  be  enriched  by  the  addition  of  oil,  incense 
and  salt;  i.  e.  the  enjoyment  of  life  becomes  en- 
riched and  preserved  clean  through  spirit  and 
through  prayer,  and  especially  through  the  salt 
of  the  covenant — through  the  hard  spiritual  dis- 
cipline which  keeps  pure  the  divine  fellowship. 
In  its  nature  the  "meat-offering"  [oblation]  is 
closely  related  to  the  salvation  (or  peace)  offer- 


30 


LEVITICUS. 


ing;  yet  the  latter  has  reference  to  the  enjoy- 
ment or  desire  of  uncommon  prosperity,  while 
the  former  relates  to  the  enjoyment  of  usual  and 
quiet  existence.  The  meat-uifering  culminates 
in  the  shew-bread  (Ex.  xxv.  30;  Lev.  xxtv.  5)." 
Lange.  "In  all  these  cases  the  sacred  charac- 
ter of  the  offering  was  conveyed  not  only  by  the 
admixture  of  oil,  the  type  of  holiness  and  sanc- 
tification,  the  addition  of  frankincense,  the  em- 
blem of  devotion,  and  the  use  of  salt,  the  agent 
of  preservation,  and  therefore  called  'the  salt 
of  the  covenant;'  but  more  decidedly  still  by 
the  rigid  prohibition  of  honey  and  leaven,  rep- 
resenting fermentation  and  corruption,  by  the 
portion  devoted  to  God  and  burnt  in  His  honor 
as  a  'memorial'  to  bring  the  worshipper  to  His 
gracious  remembrance,  and  lastly  by  the  injunc- 
tion to  leave  to  the  priests  the  remainder  as 
most  holy."   Kalisch. 

Three  kinds  of  oblation  are  here  mentioned, 
the  second  of  which  had  three  varieties  :  I.  Fine 
flour  with  frankincense  (vers.  1-3);  II.  Cakes 
or  pastry:  (a)  of  unleavened  cakes  mixed  with 
oil  and  baked  in  an  oven  (ver.  4),  or  (A)  of  thin 
cakes,  also  unleavened,  baked  and  then  broken 
up  and  oil  poured  over  them  (vers.  5,  6),  or  (c) 
of  fine  flour  boiled  iu  oil  (ver.  7) ;  the  directions 
common  to  all  these  varieties  occupy  vers.  8-10, 
while  those  concerning  all  oblations  are  in  vers. 
11-13;  III.  Parched  kernels  of  the  first-fruits 
of  grain  with  frankincense. 

I.  The  first  kind  of  oblation.     Vers.  1-3. 

Ver.  1.  A  soul=a  person,  any  oue  of  either 
sex. 

Fine  flour — j*V,D,  a  word  of  uncertain  deri- 
vation, but  clearly  meaning  fine  flour,  whe- 
ther as  separated  from  the  bran,  or  a3  sifted 
from  the  coarser  particles.  The  Syr.  here 
renders  purnm,  aud  in  Gen.  xviii.  6  it  is 
put  in  apposition  with  nop  E'KO.  It  is  proba- 
ble that  this  flour  was  generally  of  wheat  (see 
Ex.  xxix.  2),  and  the  LXX.  always  translate  it 
aeuiSaXtc.  The  Vulg  has  similia.  Tv)b  does  not 
occur  in  connection  with  the  jealousy-oblation 
of  barley,  Num.  v.  15. 

Put  frankincense  thereto. — The  incense 
was  not  mixed  with  the  flour  and  oil,  but  so 
added  that,  it  might  be  wholly  removed  with  the 
"handful"  which  was  taken  to  be  burned  with 
the  incense  upon  the  altar.  Frankincense  was 
"a  costly,  sweet-smelling,  pale  yellow  resin, 
the  milky  exudation  of  a  shrub,  used  for  sabred 
fumigations"  (Fuerst),  and  also  for  purposes 
of  royal  luxury  (Cant.  iii.  6).  It  is  considered 
to  have  been  a  product  of  Southwestern  Arabia. 
Its  use  in  the  oblations  presented  with  the  ani- 
mal sacrifices  must  have  been  important.  Mai- 
monides  (More  Neborh.,  lib.  III.,  c.  46):  Ele- 
gitque  ad  emu  thus,  propter  bonitiitem  odoris  fumi 
ipstus  in  Mis  locis,  ubi  J'ozlor  est  ex  carnibus  com- 
bustis. 

Ver.  2.  And  he  shall  take.—  The  A.  V. 
like  the  Ileb.  leaves  the  antecedent  of  the  pro- 
noun somewhat  uncertain  ;  but  the  Targ.  Ouke- 
los  and  the  Vulg.  are  undoubtedly  right  in  re- 
ferring it  to  the  priest,  see  vi.  15,  and  comp, 
also  v.  12.     The  transfer  of  the   handful   from 


the  offerer  to  the  priest  who  was  to  burn  it 
would  have  been  inconvenient. 

Handful.— Plainly  what  the  hand  could  hold, 
and  not,  as  the  Rabbins  have  it,  with  the  thumb 
aud  little  finger  closed,  leaving  three  fingers 
open. 

Memorial. — TTOtX,  applied  only  to  that 
part  of  the  oblation  which  was  burnt  upon  the 
altar  (vers.  9,  16;  vi.  15).  to  the  corresponding 
part  of  the  sin-offering  of  flour  (v.  12),  of  the 
jealousy-offering  (Num.  v  26),  and  also  to  the 
frankincense  placed  upon  the  shew-bread  (xxiv. 
7),  which  last  was  also  burnt  upon  the  altar. 
The  LXX.  render  by  hvtju6ovvov,  and  the  figura- 
tive application  of  that  word  to  the  prayers  and 
alms  of  Cornelius  (Acts  x.  4)  throws  light  upon 
the  significance  of  the  oblation. 

An  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet 
savour  unto  the  Lord. — The  same  expression 
as  is  applied  to  the  burnt-offering,  i.  9,  13,  17. 

Ver.  3.  And  the  remnant,  etc. — So  far  as 
the  offerer  was  concerned,  the  oblation  was  as 
wholly  given  to  the  Lord  as  the  burnt-offering; 
nothing  of  it  was  restored  to  him.  There  was  a 
difference  in  the  method  by  which  it  was  given: 
the  burnt-offering  was  wholly  burned  except 
the  skin,  which  was  given  to  the  priest;  the 
oblation  had  only  an  handful  burned,  together 
with  all  the  incense,  and  the  bulk  of  it  was  con- 
sumed by  the  priests. 

A  thing  most  holy. — D'UHp  Bhp,  lit.  holy 
of  holies.  This  term  is  applied  to  all  sacrificial 
gifts  which  were  wholly  devoted  to  God,  yet  of 
which  a  part  was  given  to  Him  by  being  given 
to  His  priests.  It  is  not  applied  to  the  burnt- 
offerings,  nor  to  the  priestly  oblations  (vi.  19- 
23),  nor  to  any  other  sacrifices  which  were 
wholly  consumed  upon  the  altar.  All  sacrifices 
were  holy,  and  the  phrase  most  holy  is  not  to 
mark  those  to  which  it  is  applied  as  holier  than 
the  others;  but  is  used  only  in  regard  to  those 
which,  having  been  wholly  devoted,  might  pos- 
sihly  be  perverted  to  other  uses.  Thus  it  is 
used  of  the  oblations  (vers.  3,  10;  vi.  17;  x. 
12)  of  such  of  the  sin  aud  trespass-offerings  as 
were  not  burned  without  the  camp  (vi.  25,  29; 
vii.  1,  6;  x.  17;  xiv.  13;  Num.  xviii.  9),  and 
of  the  shew-bread  (xxiv.  9).  Its  use  is  similar 
when  applied  to  other  things  than  sacrifices; 
thus,  Ex.  xl.  10,  it  is  used  of  the  altar  in  con- 
tradistinction to  the  tabernacle  which  is  called 
holy  (ver.  9),  because  the  altar  was  thus  to  be 
guarded  from  the  touch  of  the  people,  while 
there  was  no  danger  in  regard  to  the  tabernacle 
proper,  since  they  were  forbidden  to  enter  it  at 
all  (comp.  Ex.  xxix.  37);  so  the  term  is  applied 
to  the  sacred  incense  (Ex.  xxx.  36),  and  to  all 
objects  devoted  by  vow,  whether  man  or  beast 
or  field  (xxvii.  28).  The  parts  of  all  "most 
holy"  sacrifices  which  were  not  placed  upon 
tin'  altar  must  be  eaten  by  the  priests  themselves 
in  "  a  holy  place"  (vi.  26;  vii.  6;  x.  17,  etc.): 
and  this  "holy  place" — not  the  sanctuary  itself 
— is  more  particularly  described  (vi.  26)  as  "in 
the  court  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation," 
and  "  beside  the  altar "  (x.  12).  Whereas  the 
priests'  portion  of  other  sacrifices  might  be 
eaten  with  their  families  iu  any  "clean  place" 
(x.  14). 


CHAP.  II.  1-16. 


31 


II.  The  second  kind  of  oblation.  Vers.  4-13. 

This  inc'uded  several  varieties  of  cakes  or 
pastry  all  prepared  from  fine  flour  and  with  oii, 
but  without  frankincense. 

(a)   The  first  variety,  ver.  4. 

Ver.  4.  Baken  in  the  oven. — lUrl  >s  an 
oven  of  any  kind,  but  must  here  mean  a  porta- 
ble oven,  or  rather  a  large  earthen  pot  or  jar, 
such  as  is  still  in  use  in  the  East  for  baking 
cakes,  such  as  is  mentioned  in  xi.  35  as  capable 
of  being  broken;  this  was  heated  by  a  fire 
inside. 

Cakes. — flOn  from  Tin— to  be  perforated. 
A  thick  kind  of  cake  pierced  with  holes  after 
the  fashion  of  our  bakers'  biscuit.  These  were 
mixed  up  with  oil  before  baking. 

Wafers — from  pp_^=to  beat  or  spread  out  thin, 
This  denotes  a  kind  of  cake  well  described  by 
wafer.     It  is  often  cooked  by  the  Arabs  ou  the 

outside  of  the  same  vessel  in   which   the   j"lwn 
are  baked  at  the   same  time.     The   oil   was  ap- 
plied to  these  after  they  were  baked. 
(A)  The  second  variety,  vers.  5,  6. 

Ver.  5.  In  a  pan.— nsrnri-^.  Authori- 
ties differ  as  to  whether  this  is  to  be  understood 
a9  in  the  text  of  the  A.  V.  of  a  frying  pan,  or  as 
in  the  marg  n  of  a  flat  plate.  The  LXX.  render 
T'jyavnv  which  seems  to  be  equally  perpetuated 
in  the  iron  frying-pans  of  the  Cabyles  of  Africa, 
and  the  earthen  plates  of  the  Bedouins  of  the 
East,  both  being  called  taj'en.  The  distinction 
of  this  variety  of  oblation  from  the  former  will 
be  more  marked  if  we  may  understand  it  of 
fried  cakes,  according  to  the  translation  of  the 
A.  V.  in  1  Chrou.  xxiii.  29.  This  was  both  to 
be  made  up  with  oil.  and  to  have  oil  poured  on 
it  after  it  was  cooked  and  broken  into  pieces. 

(c)   The  third  variety,  ver.  7. 

Ver.  7.  Boiled  in  a  pot. — This  is  another 
variety  made  up  with  oil  and  boiled,  perhaps 
also  boiled  in  oil.  Lange  notes  that  with  each 
successive  advance  in  the  form  of  the  oblation 
"the  addition  of  the  oil  seems  to  rise,  as  if  the 
varying  grade  of  spiritual  life  was  distinguished 
by  the  consecration  of  life's  enjoyment.  (See 
Keil,  ICnobel,  363.)  But  throughout  the  oil  of 
the  Spirit  is  the  peculiar  or  appropriate  vital 
essence  of  the  offering,  especially  in  the  burnt- 
offering  and  the  thank-offeriug,  and  above  all  in 
the  sacrifice  of  the  priests." 

Directions  common  to  both  these  varieties  of 
oblation.  Vers.  8-10.  These  scarcely  differ  from 
the  directions  in  vers.  2,  3,  except  in  the  omis- 
sion of  incense  which  was  not  used  with  the 
cooked  oblation.  The  ]"p  D'^n  in  ver.  9  has 
the  same  sense  with  the  JO  |"Op  °f  Ter-  2 
(comp.  iii.  3  with  iv.  8,  31,  35;  and  iv.  10  with 
iv.  31,  35),  and  means  simply  to  lift  off  the  part 
to  be  burned.  It  does  not  denote,  as  the  Rab- 
bins and  others  assert,  any  special  waving  cere- 
mony. 

Vers.  11-13.  General  directions  concerning  all 
oblations. 

Ye  shall  burn  no  leaven,  nor  any 
honey. — These  were  strictly  prohibited  as  of- 
ferings to  be  laid  upon  the  altar,  but  not  for 
those  offered   to   God   by   being   given   to   Ilia 


priests;  thus  they  are  allowed  in  ver.  12.  Lea- 
vened bread  is  also  required  in  the  peace-offer- 
ing to  be  used  as  a  heave-offering  (vii.  13,  14), 
and  in  the  Pentecostal  loaves  to  be  waved  before 
the  Lord  (xxiii.  17,  20),  and  honey  is  expressly 
enumerated  among  the  first-fruits  offered  under 
Hezekiah  (2  Chron.  xxxi.  5).  The  reason  for 
the  exclusion  of  these  from  the  altar  was  un- 
doubtedly their  fermenting  property  (for  honey 
was  anciently  used  in  the  preparation  of  vinegar, 
Plin.  Nat.  Hist.  xi.  15;  xxi.  48);  fermentation 
has  ever  been  recognized  "  as  an  apt  symbol  of 
the  working  of  corruption  in  the  human  heart" 
(Clark)  both  in  Scripture  (Luke  xii.  1;  1  Cor. 
v.  8;  Gal.  v.  9),  and  among  the  ancients  gene- 
rally (Aul.  Gell.  Noct.  Att.  x.  15),  and  hence 
was  unsuitable  for  the  altar  of  Jehovah,  although 
as  abundantly  shown  by  Bochart  {Hieroz.  Ed. 
Rosen.  III.,  p.  394  sq.)  continually  offered  to 
the  heathen  deities.  Honey  was  also  by  the 
aucient  interpreters  generally  connected  with 
the  delieise  carnis  so  destructive  of  the  spiritual 
life.  "  The  leaven  signifies  an  incongruous  fel- 
lowship with  the  world,  easily  becoming  conta- 
gious, which  must  be  excluded  from  the  priestly 
fellowship  with  Jehovah.  The  honey,  on  the 
other  hand,  signified  in  contrast  with  the  leaven, 
the  dainty  enjoyment  of  children,  or  especially 
infants  (Isa.  vii.  15),  and  was  no  food  for  the 
communion  of  priestly  men  with  Jehovah." 
Lange. 

Ver.  12.  As  an  offering.— The  sense  ia 
plainly  that  while  leaven,  i.  c.  anything  made 
with  leaven,  and  honey  might  not  be  burned 
upou  the  altar,  they  were  yet  allowable  as  offer- 
ings of  first-fruits  to  be  consumed  by  the  priests. 
Ver.  13.  This  verse  gives  directions  applica- 
ble to  all  oblations,  and  in  fact  to  all  sacrifices. 
The  salt  of  the  covenant  of  thy  God. — 
A  covenant  of  salt  is  a  perpetual  covenant, 
Num.  xviii.  19;  2  Chron.  xiii.  5;  and  this  ex- 
pression is  said  to  be  still  in  use  among  the 
Arabs  at  this  day.  Salt  in  its  unalterable  and 
preserving  property  is  the  opposite  of  leaven 
and  of  honey.  Its  symbolical  meaning  is  there- 
fore plain;  the  purifying  and  preserving  prin- 
ciple must  never  be  wanting  from  any  offering 
made  in  covenant-relation  with  God. 

With  all  thine  offerings. — From  the  con- 
nection of  this  clause  it  might,  with  Knobel,  be 
taken  as  applicable  only  to  oblations;  but  a9 
salt  was  used  with  all  offerings  (Ezek.  xliii.  24: 
Mark  ix.  49),  not  only  among  the  Hebrews,  but 
other  nations  also  (Plin.  Nat.  Hist.  xxxi.  41  in 
sacris  .  .  .  nulla  eonficiuntur  sine  mola  salsa),  and 
as  on  account  of  this  universally  recognized 
usage  no  other  direction  is  anywhere  given 
about  it  in  the  law,  it  seems  better  to  take  the 
words  as  a  parenthetical  clause  meaut  to  apply 
to  all  offerings  of  every  kind. 

III.  The  third  kind  of  oblation.  Vers.  14-16. 
This  kind  of  oblation  is  separated  from  the  others 
probably  because  it  was  not  like  them  offered  in 
connection  with  the  bloody  sacrifices,  but  by 
itself,  like  the  same  kind  of  offering  mentioned 
in  Num.  xviii.  12,  13.  That  offering,  however, 
was  obligatory,  while  this  was  voluntary. 
Lange,  however,  considers  that  "this  direction 
looks  back  to  ver.  12,  completing  it.  It  is  true 
that  the  leavened  loaves  of  the  first-fruits  might 


S2 


LEVITICUS. 


not  he  brought  to  the  sacrificial  fire;  but  it  is 
not.  on  that  account  to  be  said  that  in  general 
the  first-fruits  were  not  to  be  offered.  Accord- 
ingly the  form  is  now  prescribed."  These  pre- 
cepts are  of  course  to  be  understood  of  private 
and  voluntary  oblations  of  first-fruits;  both  the 
time  (on  the  morrow  after  the  Passover-Sabbath, 
xxiii.  II)  and  the  material  (barley — for  this  only 
was  ripe  at  that  time)  of  the  public  and  required 
oblation  grain  were  prescribed. 

Ver.  14.  Green  ears  of  grain. — Ears  freshly 
gathered  of  the  maturing  grain  scarcely  yet 
quite  ripe.  Stalks  of  wheat  with  the  ears, 
gathered  before  they  are  entirely  ripe,  roasted 
by  the  fire,  and  the  kernels  of  grain  then  beaten 
out.  is  still  a  favorite  food  in  the  East. 

Vers.  15,  16.  Oil  and  frankincense  were 
to  be  added,  and  the  oblation  treated  as  that  in 
vers.  2,  3. 

DOCTRINAL   AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  As  the  burnt-offerings  were  of  such  domes- 
tic animals  as  were  used  for  food,  and  yet  not 
from  every  kind  of  them ;  so  the  oblations  were 
of  certain  kinds  of  farinaceous  food  in  common 
use — not  indeed  of  all  kinds,  but  of  a  sufficient 
variety  to  place  the  material  of  the  offering 
always  within  easy  reach.  Both  kinds  of  offer- 
ings, which  were  entirely  voluntary,  were  thus 
made  easily  accessible  to  the  people,  and  they 
were  taught  that  the  things  of  the  daily  life 
were  to  be  sanctified  by  offerings  to  God.  As 
the  perfect  animal  was  required  for  the  burnt- 
offering,  so  the  fine  flour  was  demanded  for  the 
oblation  ;  that  which  is  given  to  God  is  to  be  of 
the  best  man  has. 

II.  That  which  is  once  absolutely  given  to 
God  may  not.  afterwards  be  turned  aside  to  any 
other  use.  However  voluntary  the  gift,  when  it 
has  once  been  stamped  "most  holy,"  it  belongs 
to  Him  alone.  The  principle  is  recognized  in 
the  N.  T.  in  the  case  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira. 
Yet  what  is  given  to  God  must  often,  as  in  the 
oblation,  be  largely  consumed  by  those  who 
minister  on  His  behalf,  and  by  secondary  instru- 
mentalities generally.  This  is  recognized  by 
St.  Paul  in  1  Cor.  is.  13,  14,  and  must  necessa- 
rily be  true  of  the  great  mass  of  the  gifts  in  the 
Christian  Church  given  to  God  for  the  uphold- 
ing and  advancement  of  His  kingdom  on  earth. 

III.  In  the  exclusion  from  the  oblation  of  all 
ferment  and  I  he  requirement  of  the  salt  of  purity 
and  preservation  is  plainly  taught  that  approach 
to  God  must  be  free  from  contamination  of  "  the 
leaven  of  hypocrisy,"  and  must  have  in  it  both 
purity  and  steadfastness. 

IV.  In  the  oblation,  recognizing  as  a  whole 
that  man  gives  back  to  God  of  that  which  God 
has  given  to  him,  the  use  of  the  oil  seems  to 
have  a  more  special  significance.  As  an  article 
of  food  it  meant  also  what  was  meant  by  the 
fine  flour;  but  inasmuch  as  oil  is  constantly  in 
Scripture  the  emblem  of  Divine  grace  given 
through  the  Spirit,  it  was  perhaps  intended  by 


its  use  in  the  oblation  to  signify  also  the  ac- 
knowledgment that  spiritual  gifts  are  from  God 
and  belong  to  Him. 

V.  Much  of  the  ritual  of  the  oblation  is  ap- 
plied in  the  N.  T.  to  Christian  duties  and  affec- 
tions, sometimes  in  what  is  common  to  this  with 
other  offerings,  sometimes  in  what  belonged  to 
this  alone.  Several  such  passages  have  already 
been  pointed  out ;  others  may  be  added:  Matt. 
xvi.  6,  Beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees 
and  Sidducees:   Mark  ix.  49,50,  Every  sacrifice 

shall   be  salted  with   salt Have   salt   in 

yourselves,  and  have  peace  one  with  another; 
1  Cor.  v.  7,  8;  Col.  iv.  6,  Let  your  speech  be 
alway  with  grace,  seasoned  with  salt;  Heb.  xiii. 
15,  through  Christ,  Let  us  offer  the  sacrifice  of 
praise  to  God  continually,  that  is,  the  fruit  of  our 
lips  giving  thanks  to  His  name. 

HOMILETICAL   AND   PRACTICAL. 

The  oblation  to  God,  though  unbloody  and 
among  the  least  of  the  sacrifices,  must  still  be 
the  best  of  its  kind,  of  fine  flour.  It  must  have 
upon  it  the  oil  of  an  act  of  the  Spirit,  and  the 
sweet  frankincense  of  prayer.  That  it  may  be 
truly  a  gift  to  God,  and  acceptable,  it  is  only 
necessary  that  a  mere  handful  of  it  be  actually 
burned  upon  His  altar;  the  rest  is  still  a  gift  to 
Him,  although  consumed  by  those  who  minister 
in  His  Bervice.  "It  is  joined  with  the  burnt- 
offering  like  blessing  with  faithful  discharge  of 
duty."   Lange. 

Every  variety  of  food,  fit  for  the  altar,  must 
be  sanctified  by  an  oblation.  We  ever  ask: 
"  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread,"  and  re- 
ceiving it,  we  are  called  upon  to  acknowledge 
the  Giver  by  giving  to  Him  an  offering  of  that 
which  is  His  own.  Even  the  leaven  and  the 
honey,  which,  from  their  fermenting  properties, 
may  not  go  upon  the  altar,  may  yet  be  offered 
as  first-fruits.  There  is  none  of  God's  gifts 
which  we  may  use  ourselves,  with  which  we 
may  not  show  our  gratitude  to  the  Giver. 

In  the  worship  of  God  "we  may  not  adopt 
our  own  inventions,  though  they  may  be  sweet 
and  delicious  as  honey  to  our  own  palates.  .  .  . 
Honey  is  good  in  its  proper  place,  and  heaven 
itself  is  typified  by  'a  land  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey  '  (Ex.  iii.  8  ;  xiii.  5) ;  but  if  God  for- 
bids it,  we  must  abstain  from  it,  or  we  shall  not 
come  to  that  heavenly  Canaan."   Wordswonh. 

That,  seasoning  of  salt  which  the  apostle  re- 
quires for  our  conversation  (Col.  iv.  b),  may  not 
be  wanting  from  our  gifts  to  God.  They  are  not 
to  be  insipid,  but  having  "that,  freshness  and 
vital  briskness  which  characterizes  the  Spirit's 
presence  and  work."   Alford. 

Of  first-fruits  especially  is  an  oblation  to  be 
brought.  Not  only  should  we  give  to  God  as 
He  blesses  us  all  along;  but  especially  with 
each  new  harvest  received  from  His  bounty 
should  a  first  portion  be  laid  aside  for  His  ser- 
vice. 


CHAP.  III.  1-17.  33 


C— PEACE-OFFERINGS. 
Chap.  III.  1-17. 

1  And  if  his  oblation  [offering1]  be  a  sacrifice  of  peace-offering,  if  he  offer  it  of  the 
herd ;  whether  it  be  a  male  or  female,  he  shall  offer  it  without  blemish  before  the 

2  Lord.  And  he  shall  lay  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  his  offering,  and  kill  it  at  the 
door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [om.  the2]  congregation:  and  Aaron's  sons  the  priests 

3  shall  sprinkle  the  blood  upon  the  altar  round  about.  And  he  shall  offer  of  the 
sacrifice  of  the  peace-offering  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  ;  the  fat  that 

4  covereth  the  inwards,  and  all  the  fat  that  is  upon  the  inwards,  and  the  two  kidneys, 
and  the  fat  that  is  on  them,  which  is  by  the  flanks,  and  the  caul  above  the  liver, 

5  with  [ons]  the  kidneys,  it  shall  he  take  away.  And  Aaron's  sons4  shall  burn  it  on 
the  altar  upon  the  burnt-sacrifice,  which  is  upon  the  wood  that  is  on  the  fire :  it  is 
an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord. 

6  And  if  his  offering  for  a  sacrifice  of  peace-offering  unto  the  Lord  be  of  the  flock ; 

7  male  or  female,  he  shall  offer  it  without  blemish.     If  he  offer  a  lamb  [sheep5]  for 

8  his  offering,  then  shall  he  offer  it  before  the  Lord.  And  he  shall  lay  his  hand 
upon  the  head  of  his  offering,  and  kill  it  before6  the  tabernacle  of  the  [om.  the2] 
congregation :  and  Aaron's  sons  shall  sprinkle  the  blood  thereof  round  about  upon 

9  the  altar.  And  he  shall  offer  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  peace-offering  an  offering  made 
by  fire  unto  the  Lord  ;  the  fat  thereof,  and  the  whole  rump  [fat  tail'],  it  shall  he 
take  off  hard  by  the  back-bone :  and  the  fat  that  covereth  the  inwards,  and  all  the 

10  fat  that  is  upon  the  inwards,  and  the  two'  kidneys,  and  the  fat  that  is  upon  them, 
which  is  by  the  flanks,  and  the  caul  above  the  liver,  with  [on3]  the  kidneys,  it  shall 

11  he  take  away.  And  the  priest  shall  burn  it  upon  the  altar :  it  is  the  food  of  the 
offering  made  by  fire8  unto  the  Lord. 

12,  13  And  if  his  offering  be  a  goat,  then  he  shall  offer  it  before  the  Lord.  And  he 
shall  lay  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  it,  and  kill  it  before  the  tabernacle  of  the  [om. 
the2]  congregation:  and  the  sons  of  Aaron  shall  sprinkle  the  blood  thereof  upon 

14  the  altar  round  about.  And  he  shall  offer  thereof  his  offering,  even  an  offering 
made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  ;  the  fat  that  covereth  the  inwards,  and  all  the  fat  that 

15  is  upon  the  inwards,  and  the  two  kidneys,  and  the  fat  that  is  upon  them,  which  is 
by  the  flanks,  and  the  caul  above  the  liver,  with  [on3]  the  kidneys,  it  shall  he  take 

16  away.  And  the  priest  shall  burn  them  upon  the  altar :  it  is  the  food  of  the  offer- 
ing made  by  fire  for  a  sweet  savour :  all  the  fat  is  the  Lord's  [as  food  of  an  offer- 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 
1  Ver.  1.  |3*^p=ofFering,  as  in  ch.  ii. 
'  Ver.  2.  See  on  i.  3,  Text.  Note  ». 
8  Ver.  4.  7_^*  must  here  be  translated  on,  not  ieitk,  since  the  kidneys  have  just  been  mentioned. 

<  Ver.  5.  The  Sam.,  LXX.  and  one  MS.  add  the  priests.  So  also  the  LXX.  and  one  MS.  in  ver.  8,  and  the  Sam.  and 
XXX.  in  ver.  13. 

6  Ver.  7.  3t93— H33,  according  to  Bochart  (Bieroz.  I.  33),  a  sheep  of  intermediate  age  between  the  rnU='amb 

and  the  TX  of  three  years  old.    It  is,  however,  often  applied  to  the  sheep  of  one  year  in  which  case  the  age  is  mentioned, 

as  xiv.  10;  Nnm.  vii.  15, 17,  21,  etc.    In  Prov.  xxvii.  26  it  is  described  as  yielding  wool.    In  the  A.  V.  the  form  fc?33  is 

uniformly  rendered  lamb,  except  in  Ex.  xii.  5,  while  the  other  form  is  translated  sheep  nine  times,  and  Unnb  four  times. 
There  is  no  ground  for  this  distinction. 

6  Ver.  8.  The  locality  fir  killing  the  victim  is  made  more  definite  by  the  insertion  in  one  MS.  and  in  the  Syr.:  "be- 
fore the  Lord  at  the  door  of."     The  LXX.  makes  the  same  insertion  in  ver.  13. 

7  Ver.  9.  TV 7X,  according  to  all  interpreters  the  fat  tail  of  the  ovis  laticaudata,  a  variety  common  in  Arabia  and 

Syria,  but  in  modern  Palestine  "aid  to  be  the  only  variety.  The  tail  is  described  a*  of  rich  marrowy  fat,  of  the  width  of 
the  hind  quarters,  and  often  trailing  on  the  ground.  The  wor  I  occurs  only  in  this  connection  (Ex.  xxix.  22;  Lt-v.  vii.  3; 
viii.  25;  ix.  19),  and  is  rendered  by  all  the  ancient  versions,  except  the  LXX.  (oaifjiiO,  tail.     So  also  Jos.  Aut.  iii.  9.  2. 

e  Ver.  11.  The  sense  is  expressod  by  the  addition  in  2  MSS.  and  in  the  LXX  of  the  words  from  i.  9,  13,  17,  ninp~n'"1 
(=.a  Bweet-soielling  savor.) 


34 


LEVITICUS. 


17  iug  made  by  fire  for  a  sweet  savour,  shall  all  the  fat  be  the  Lord's9].  It  shall  be  a 
perpetual  statute  for  your  generations  throughout  all  your  dwellings,  that  ye  eat 
neither  fat  nor  blood. 

'  Ver.  16.  The  A.  V.  seems  unnecessarily  complicated,  as  there  are  but  two  clauses  in  this  verse.    After  "savour"  the 
Sam.,  LXX  ,  and  some  ilSS.  add  "  to  the  Lord. ' 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

Tbe  peace-offering,  like  the  offerings  of  the 
preceding  chapters,  is  spoken  of  as  already  in 
common  use,  and  the  law  is  given  for  its  proper 
regulation.  The  offerings  of  this,  as  of  the  pre- 
vious chapters,  were  voluntary.  The  peace- 
offering  differed  from  the  oblation  in  being  ani- 
mal, and  from  the  burnt-offering  in  not  being 
wholly  consumed,  but  after  a  small  portion  had 
been  burned,  and  a  portion  given  to  the  priest, 
the  remainder  reverted  to  the  offerer  for  a  sac- 
rificial in .  al  (vii.  11-21);  a  further  difference  is 
in  that  the  burnt-offerings  were  only  male,  the 
peace-offerings  either  male  or  female;  and  still 
further,  doves  were  not  allowed  iu  the  peace- 
offerings,  because  they  were  too  small  for  the 
necessary  division,  and  for  the  sacrificial  feast. 

The  full  form  D'VJ'd  113!  used  here,  is  nearly 
always  employed  in  Leviticus;  but  the  peace- 
offering  is  probably  intended  by  the  simple  fQi 
of  xxiii.  37  (vii.  16,  17  does  not,  and  xvii.  8 
may  not  mean  peace-offering),  and  it  certainly 

is  by  O'V^p  in  ix.  22.  The  latter,  as  the  de- 
termining word,  is  frequently  used  elsewhere 
alone,  as  Ex.  xx.  24;  xxxii.  6;  Deut.  xxvii.  7; 
Josh.  viii.  31,  <•(<•.  The  word  is  variously  de- 
rived and  has  various  shades  of  signification 
attached  to  it:  (1)  Thank-offering,  Gesenius, 
Fiirst,  Luther,  Rosenuiiiller,  Winer,  Biihr, 
etc.,  flnoia  xaPlaTVPlai  J°s.  Ant.  iii.  9,  2;  (2) 
Meat-offering,  Zunz;  (3)  Salvation- offer ini/,  aurrii- 
pirn;  LXX.  most  frequently  («'.  e.  in  the  Tent., 
Josh..  Judges,  Chron.,  Ezra,  Amos),  Piiilo; 
(4)  Peace-offering,  e'lpnvmuc,  LXX.  (in  Samuel, 
Kings,  Prnv.),  Aq.,  Sym.,  Theod.,  Vulg.,  A.  V. 
The  last  two  senses  are  very  similar;  the  first 
seems  less  appropriate,  partly  because  the 
strictly  than],  i  ng  appears  as  a  special  variety 
of  this  more  general  class   (vii.   11,   12);   partly 

because  the  G"y~*'d  were  offered  not  only  in 
thanks  for  benefits  received,  but  also  in  times 
of  distress  and  in  supplication  for  the  divine 
help  (Judg.  xx.  20;  xxi.  4;  1  Sam.  xiii.  9;  2 
Sam.  xxiv.  25).  Outram  says :  Sacrificia  salu- 
taria  in  eacris.  Uteris  shelamim  dicta,  ut  ante  semper 
de  rebut  proiperis  fieri  solerent,  impetratii  utique, 
aut  impetrandit.  Lange  brings  together  the 
several  meanings  in  the  name  Beiltopfer,  salva- 
tion or  saving  offering  "in  the  common  sense 
of  blessing  or  prosperity-offering."  In  English 
the  already  accepted  peace-offering  seems  to  ex- 
press sufficiently  the  same  sense,  and  is  there- 
fore retained.  The  law  (vii.  12-1C)  distinguishes 
three  kinds  of  peace-offerings — thanksgiving, 
vow  and  free-will  offerings;  the  only  difference 
in  their  ritual  being  in  the  length  of  time  during 
which  their  flesh  might  be  eaten. 

The   peace-offerings  are    not    called     "most 


holy"  like  the  oblation,  but  only  "holy,"  and 
the  priests'  portion  might  be  eaten  by  their 
families  in  any  "  clean  place"  (vii.  31  with  x. 
14;  xxiii.  20).  The  portion  which  reverted  to 
the  offerer  to  be  eaten  as  a  sacrificial  feast 
might  be  partaken  of  only  by  those  who  were 
legally  "clean"  (vii.  20,  21).  The  peace-offer- 
ings were  prescribed  on  a  variety  of  occasions, 
and  as  they  were  the  necessary  offerings  of  sac- 
rificial feasts,  and  hence  of  all  solemn  national 
rejoicings,  they  were  the  most  common  of  all 
sacrifices.  From  Num.  xv.  it  appears  that,  like 
the  burut-offeiiag,  they  were  always  accompa- 
nied by  the  meat  and  the  drink-offering. — 
Lange  :  "  The  peace-offering  refers  to  prosperity 
as  Jehovah's  free  gift  in  past,  present,  and  future. 
As  regards  the  past,  it  is  a  simple  praise  and 
thank-offering  (an  Eben  Ezer,  Amus  v.  2.).  In 
reference  to  a  happy  present,  it  is  a  content- 
ment, joy,  or  feast-offering.  As  it  relates  to  a 
future  to  be  realized,  to  au  experience  of  salva- 
tion yet  to  come,  to  a  deliverance  or  an  exhibi- 
tion of  mercy  that  is  prayed  for  with  a  vuw,  it 
is  a  votive  offering.  The  prescriptions  in  regard 
to  the  various  kinds  are  different.  Here  it  is 
said,  that  the  animal  to  be  s'ain  may  be  either 
male  or  female,  only  it  must  be  without  blemish. 
In  eh.  vii.  15  sq.  nothing  of  the  praise-offering 
might  be  left  over  until  the  next  day,  whereas 
the  vow,  or  free-will  offering  might  be  eaten  also 
on  the  next  day,  but  not  on  the  third  day." 
Lange  then  points  out  that  in  the  casi  of  those 
vow,  or  free-will  offerings  which  were  to  be 
burnl-ufferings,  a  male  was  required,  xxii.  19, 
without  blemish.  "  Eveu  an  abuornial  forma- 
tion of  the  victim,  too  long  or  too  short  legs  of 
the  animal  [vii.  22,  23]  was  enough  to  make  it 
unsuitable  for  the  vow-offering,  but  still  not  for 
tue  free-will  offering.  So  every  kind  of  pros- 
perity was  to  be  hallowed  to  the  Lord."* 

Sacrificial  feists  were  at  lea-t  as  old  as  tho 
time  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxi.  51),  and  became  com- 
mon among  all  nations;  but  the  distinctive 
name  of  peace-offering  first  appears  when  .Moses 
came  down  with  the  law  from  Mt.  Sinai  (Ex. 
xxiv.  5).  The  thing  signified,  however,  must 
have  been  already  familiar  to  the  people,  for 
the  word  recurs  in  connection  with  the  idola- 
trous sacrifice  of  Aaron  when  .Moses  had  again 
gone  up  into  the  Mount  (Ex.  xxxii.  G). 

Two  kinds  of  victims  were  allowable:  of  the 
"herd,"  or  of  the  "flock." 

Vers.  1-5.  The  peace-offering  of  the  herd,  i.  e. 
a  bullock  or  a  cow. 


*  In  rotrard  to  the  question  whether  the  i-1'  II  -offering 
embraces also  the  eupplicatory  offering,  Lange  suys:  "It  is 
underatood  that  the  vows  themselves  ftew  supplications, 
iron  which  the  accompanying  offering  might  also  be  railed 
a  supplicatory  offering;  but  a  peculiar  supplfcub  n  off.  ring 
to  strengthen  tbe  supplication  would  ha  e  been  prejudicial 

to  tho  lr lorn  of  tin-  divine  beeriug.     It  Blinws    i   tine  dls- 

hin'i  no  tlml  tin-  life  pruiso  una.  thank-utTering*  tThbda), 
which  were  preceded  by  no  vows,  were  exulted  above  the 
vow-offerlugd  ami  free-will  offering-",  ina  much  as  tuese  lat- 
ter might  be  accompanied  by  a  selri.h  feeling." 


CHAP.  III.  1-17. 


35 


Ver.  1.  The  victim  both  in  this  and  in  the 
other  kind  (ver.  6)  might  be  of  either  sex.  Ac- 
cording to  Herodotus,  this  was  directly  contrary 
to  the  Egyptian  law,  which  forbade  offering  the 
female  in  sacrifice:  dnltiae  ov  c6i  l^errrt  P'uetv  (ii. 
41).  As  in  the  case  of  other  offerings,  the  vic- 
tim must  be  "without  blemish."  There  was 
ordinarily  no  restriction  of  age,  although  in 
some  special  cases  yearling  lambs  are  mentioned 
(xxiii.  19;  Num.  vii.  17). 

Ver.  2.  The  laying  on  of  the  offerer's  hand 
and  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  by  the  priest  are 
the  same  as  in  the  case  of  the  burnt-offering; 
hence  no  signification  can  be  attached  to  these 
acts  in  the  one  case  which  will  not  apply  in  the 
other  also,  except  of  course  in  so  far  as  an  act 
of  essentially  ihe  same  meaning  might  be  some- 
what modified  by  its  connections. 

Vers.  3,  4.  There  were  four  parts  to  be  burned 
upon  the  altar:  (1)  the  fat  that  covereth 
the  inwards,  ?'.  e.  the  large  net,  omentum,  Jos. 
iii.  9,  2,  kiriir'Aovc,  caul,  or  adipose  membrane 
found  in  mammals  attached  to  the  stomach  and 
spreading  over  the  bowels,  and  which  in  the 
ruminants  abounds  with  fat;  (2)  all  the  fat 
■which  is  upon  the  inwards,  i.  e.  the  fat 
attached  to  the  intestines,  and  which  could  be 
peeled  off;  (8)  the  two  kidneys,  and  the 
fat  that  is  on  them,  which  is  by  the  flanks, 
or  loins,  i.  e.  the  kidneys  and  all  the  fat  con- 
nected with  them;  the  kidneys  are  the  only 
thing  to  be  burned  except  the  fat ;  (4)  the  smaller 
net,  omentum  minus,  or  caul  above  the  liver, 
which  stretches  on  one  side  to  the  region  of  the 

kidneys,  hence  on  the  kidneys,  7^=by  them, 
not  with  them,  they  having  been  just  before 
mentioned.  The  word  tVVjf  occurs  only  in  Ex. 
(twice)  and  Lev.  (nine  times)  always  in  connec- 
tion with  133=the  liver;  it  is  described  as 
above  or  upon  the  liver,  and  hence  is  not  to  be 
understood,  as  has  often  been  done,  of  the  liver 
itself,  or  of  a  part  of  it.  These  four  include  all 
the  separable  fat  in  the  inside  of  the  animal 
(and  in  addition  to  these  was  the  fat  tail  in  the 
case  of  Ihe  sheep),  so  that,  ver.  16,  they  are 
called  "all  the  fat,"  so  also  iv.  8,  19,  26,  31,  35; 
vii.  3. 

Ver.  5.  Aaron's  sons  shall  burn. — The 
burning  on  the  altar,  and  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  (ver.  2),  being  the  acts  by  which  the  sac- 
rifice was  especially  offered  to  God,  were  always 
and  in  all  sacrifices  the  priestly  function. 

Upon  the  burnt  sacrifice. — This  rendering 
is  quite  correct,  and  is  in  accordance  with  the 
ancient  versions.  The  sense  given  by  Knobel 
"  according  to  "  or  "  in  the  manner  of  the  burnt- 
offering"  is  inadmissible.  iP  may  sometimes 
bear  this  sense  (Ex.  xii.  51;  Ps.  ex.  4);  but  it 
is  rare,  and  not  likely  to  he  the  meaning  here. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  peace-offerings  ordinarily 
followed  especial  burnt-offerings,  and  always 
the  daily  burnt-offering,  which  would  so  seldom 
have  been  entirely  consumed  when  the  peace- 
offering  was  offered,  that  the  fat  might  naturally 
be  described  as  placed  upon  it. 

Vers.  6-16.  The  peace-offerings  of  sheep  or 
goats. 


The  ritual  for  the  second  kind  of  peace-offer- 
ing is  the  same  as  for  the  first ;  it  is  repeated  in 
case  the  victim  should  be  a  sheep  (vers.  6-11), 
and  in  case  it  should  be  a  goat  (vers.  12-16). 
Only  in  the  case  of  the  sheep,  on  the  principle 
of  burning  all  the  separable  fat,  the  tail  (see 
Textual,  ver.  9)  must  also  be  laid  upon  the 
altar. 

Ver.  11.  (Clomp,  ver  16.)  The  food  of  the 
offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord. — 
This  is  a  common  expression  applied  to  sacr.fiees 
generally  ( "  my  bread,"  Num.  xxviii.  2  ;  "  Bread 
of  God,"  ch.  xxi.  6,  8,  17,  21,  22;  xxii.  25); 
yet  especially  mentioned  only  in  connection 
with  the  peace-offerings.  It  is  used  only  of  the 
portions  of  the  victim  burned  upon  the  altar, 
and  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the  portion 
eaten  by  the  priests  (xxi.  22).  By  a  natural 
figure,  the  whole  victim  being  food,  the  part  of 
it  given  to  Jehovah  by  burning  upon  the  altar  is 
called  the  food  of  Jehovah,  and  shows  the  com- 
munion between  Him  and  the  worshipper  brought 
about  by  the  sacrifice.  It  is  not  necessary, 
however,  to  realize  this  figure  by  attributing  to 
the  Hebrews  the  thought — belonging  to  the  later 
heathen — that  God  actually  required  food;  such, 
a  notion  was  foreign  to  their  whole  theology. 

Ver.  16.  All  the  fat—/.  «.,  nil  that  has  been 
enumerated — all  the  separable  fat  of  the   victim. 

Ver.  17.  Throughout  all  your  dwellings. 
— This  applies  to  the  life  in  the  wilderness  when 
all  sacrificial  animals  slain  for  food  were  re- 
quired to  be  offered  as  peace-offerings  before  the 
Lord  (xvii.  3-7) ;  whether  it  applies  also  to  the 
subsequent  life  in  the  land  of  promise,  when  this 
restriction  was  to  be  removed  (Deut.  xii.  15 ;  xiv. 
•11,  23  :  xv.  22,  21),  has  been  much  de haled.  In 
the  passages  removing  that  restriction,  mention 
is  made  only  of  the  blood  which  must  be  poured 
out,  and  in  the  Song  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxxti.  It), 
the  "fat  of  lambs"  is  especially  mentioned  among 
the  blessings  to  be  enjoyed. 

Ye  shall  eat  neither  fat  nor  blood. — The 

prohibition  of  the  separable  fat  (27n  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  ptfO  or  [0$  (lie  fat  mixed 
with  the  flesh  which  might  be  eaten,  Neh.  viii. 
10)  for  food  springs  immediately  from  the  fact 
that  it  was  especially  consecrated  to  God,  and 
therefore  not  to  be  used  by  man.  If  we  seek  the 
reason  of  this  consecration  it  is  not  to  be  sought 
on  hygienic  grounds  (Rosenmiiller),  but  ra- 
ther in  its  contiection  with  the  animal  economy. 
As  blood  is  described  as  "the  life"  of  Ihe  ani- 
mal, so  is  the  fat  a  stored-up  source  of  life, 
drawn  upon  for  sustaining  life  whenever,  in  de- 
ficiency of  food  or  other  exigency,  it  is  required. 
It  thus  stands  more  nearly  related  in  function  to 
the  blood,  and  became  naturally  the  appropriate 
portion  for  the  altar.  Its  proper  development 
was  also  a  mark  of  perfection  in  the  animal.  It 
is  further  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  fat  was 
considered  the  choice  portion,  and  henc  the 
word  was  figuratively  used  of  excellence  (Gen. 
xxvii.  28;  xlv.  18,  etc.)  and  thus  the  fat,  as  the 
best,  was  reserved  for  God's  portion.  The  pro-- 
hibiiion  is  repeated  with  still  stronger  emphasis, 
vii.  23-25.  but  with  the  exception  that  the  fat  of 
animals  dying  of  themselves  may  be  applied  to 
other  uses  (ver.  24).     It  has  always  been  under- 


36 


LEVITICUS. 


stood  by  the  Jews  that  the  prohibition  respects 
only  the  fat  of  animals  that  might  be  offered  in 
sacrifice.     Comp.  vii.  23. 

Nothing  is  here  said  of  the  disposal  of  the  flesh 
of  the  victim,  the  law  of  this  being  given  in  de- 
tail, vii.  11-36. 

DOCTRINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  As  all  vegetable  food  was  sanctified  by  the 
oblation,  so  all  animal  food  was  by  the  peace 
offering.  In  the  wilderness  this  was  literally 
carried  out  by  the  presenting  of  all  animals  fit 
for  sacrifice  as  offerings,  sprinkling  their  blood 
and  burning  their  fat  upon  the  altar ;  later,  when 
in  Palestine  this  became  impossible  on  account 
of  the  distances,  the  idea  was  kept  up  in  the 
prohibition  of  the  blood  for  food.  The  ge- 
neral principle  thus  expressed  for  all  time  is  that 
God's  gifts  to  man  are  to  be  acknowledged  as 
from  Him,  and  due  return  made  to  Him,  or  other- 
wise they  are  profaned. 

II.  In  the  expression  "Food  of  the  Lord," 
although  figurative,  we  recognize  the  idea  of 
communion  between  God  and  man,  expressed  by 
a  part  of  the  sacrifice  burned  on  the  altar,  and 
called  by  this  name,  while  another  part  was 
eaten  by  the  offerer  at  the  sacrificial  feast.  Simi- 
larly the  Eucharist  is  spoken  of  in  1  Cor.  x.  21 
as  the  "  Lord's  table."  In  this  respect  the  peace- 
offering  under  the  old  dispensation  signified  the 
same  thing  as  the  Eucharist  under  the  new — the 
communion  of  the  devout  worshipper  with  God. 
It  was  eminently  a  feast  of  love  towards  God  and 
man ;  the  worshipper  communicated  with  God 
by  feasting  on  the  sacrifice  offered  to  Him,  and 
by  the  portion  eaten  by  the  priests  as  His  repre- 
sentatives, and  with  man  by  feasting  with  his 
friends  on  the  remainder.  It  is  happily  de- 
scribed by  Wordsworth  as  "  an  Eucharist  cou- 
pled with  an  offertory." 

III.  All  sacrifices  were  necessarily  typical  of 
Christ,  and  each  of  them  had  in  this  respect  its 
peculiar  significance  :  with  the  peace-offering  He 
is  especially  connected  by  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah 
(liii.  5)  "  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon 
Him,"  and  by  the  frequent  application  of  this 
word  to  Him  and  to  His  sacrifice  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, (Rom.  v.  1 ;  Eph.  ii.  14-16 ;  Col.  i.  20, 
etc.). 

HOMILETICAL   AND   PRACTICAL. 

"  The  Peace-offering  is  the  expression  of  the 


feeling  that  man  might  receive  or  ask  only  a 
pure  prosperity  from  God,  and  might  offer  it  to 
Him  again."  Lange.  In  this  offering  "  God, 
the  Master  and  Judge,  was  merged  in  God,  the 
Benefactor  and  Rescuer."  Kalisch.  In  the 
feasting  of  the  offerer  with  his  friends  upon  the 
flesh  of  the  sacrifice  was  expressed  clearly  the 
idea  of  communion  with  God;  yet  even  in  this 
offering,  the  blood  must  be  sprinkled  upon  the 
altar  ; — in  the  nearest  approach  of  sinful  man  to 
God,  there  must  still  be  propitiation. 

In  the  peace-offering  any  sacrificial  animal,  of 
either  sex,  and  of  any  age  was  allowable  ;  God 
gives  man  the  largest  latitude  of  choice  in  the 
ways  of  expressing  his  gratitude.  He  also  sanc- 
tifies as  a  means  of  communion  with  Him  what- 
ever He  has  appointed  as  the  means  of  ap- 
proaching Him  in  any  way.  The  Christian  may 
commune  with  God  in  work,  in  prayer,  in  sacra- 
ments, in  study  of  His  word. 

In  this  sacrifice  the  fat  was  burnt  upon  the 
altar,  and  certain  choice  parts  given  to  the 
priests  to  be  eaten  with  their  families  ;  so  in  our 
thanksgivings,  first  let  the  Giver  of  all  good  be 
recognized,  and  the  best  of  all  be  given  back  to 
Him  ;  and  then  let  a  portion  be  given  also  to 
those  who  maintain  His  service,  that  the  main 
part  which  remains  may  be  enjoyed  by  us  with 
a  holy  joy. 

The  sacrifice  for  sin  (see  ch.  iv.)  was  limited 
to  that  which  was  prescribed,  nothing  more  was 
allowed  ;  the  peace-offerings  might  be  unlimited 
in  number  and  in  value  :  so  man  now  may  seek 
forgiveness  only  in  the  way  God  has  provided, — 
he  can  add  nothing  to  its  efficacy  ;  but  to  the  ex- 
pression of  his  thankfulness,  and  to  his  desire 
for  communion  with  God,  no  bounds  are  set.  He 
may  go  as  far  as  he  can,  and  his  offerings  will 
be  looked  upon  with  approbation  as  "  a  sweet 
savor  unto  the  Lord." 

The  feast  upon  the  sacrifice  of  peace-offerings 
might  include  all  the  members  of  the  offerer's 
family.  Thus  was  the  joyous  family  feast,  like 
every  other  human  relation  and  condition, 
brought  by  the  Levitical  law  into  relation  with 
duties  to  God,  and  sanctified  by  His  blessing  and 
by  symbolical  communion  with  Him. 

A  true  sacrifice  of  praise  is  offered  by  those 
who  glorify  God  in  their  lives.  This  constitutes 
the  Christian  peace-offering  of  communion  with 
God  in  its  highest  form — that  of  thanksgiving 
for  His  inestimable  benefits  showed  forth  in  a 
sincere  obedience  to  His  commands.  Origeu. 


D.— SIN  OFFERINGS. 

Chapters   IV.  1-35— V.  1-13. 

1,  2       And  the  Lord,  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
saying,  If  a  soul  shall  sin  through  ignorance  [inadvertence1]  against  any  of  the 


1  Vor.  2.  rtJ}H3  from  JJE>  ■ 


TEXTUAL   AND    GRAMMATICAL. 

:  njL7  =  SOl!/  =  to  totter  to  and  fro,  to  wander,  to  go  wrong. 


It  includes  not  only  sin- 


ning unawares,  through  Ignorance  (vers.  18, 922,  27 ;  v.  17),  or  carelessness,  and  want  of  consideration  (v.  1,  4) ;  but  also  un- 
intentional las  (like  thai  ol  manslaughter  without  malieS,  Num.  xxxv.  11, 15,  22),  and  therefore  sins  arielogfrom  human 
Infirmity  in  contradistinction  to  intentional  and  defiant  sins— sins  "  with  a  high  hand"— for  which  no  sacrifice  was  allow- 


CHAP.  IV.  1-35— V.  1-23.  37 


commandments  of  the  Lord  concerning  things  which  ought  not  to  be  done,  and  shall 
do  [omit  against2]  any  of  them : 

3  If  the  priest  that  is  anointed  do  sin  according  to  the  sin  of  the  people  [to  the 
guilt  of  the  people3]  ;  then  let  him  bring  for  his  sin,  which  he  hath  sinned,  a  young 

4  bullock  without  blemish  unto  the  Lord  for  a  sin  offering.  And  he  shall  bring  the 
bullock  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation  before  the 
Lord;  and  shall  lay  his  hand  upon  the  bullock's  head,  and  kill  the  bullock  before 

5  the  Lord.     And  the  priest  that  is  anointed4  shall  take  ot  the  bullocks  blood   and 

6  brino-  it  to  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation:  and  the  priest  shall  dip 
his  finger  in  the  blood,  and  sprinkle  of  the  blood  seven  times  before  the  Lord,  be- 

7  fore  the  vail  of  the  sanctuary.  And  the  priest  shall  put  some  of  the  blood  upon 
the  horns  of  the  altar  of  sweet  incense  before  the  Lord,  which  is  in  the  tabernacle 
of  the  [omit  the]  congregation  ;  and  shall  pour  all  the  [other]  blood  of  the  bullock 
at  the  bottom  of  the  altar  of  the  burnt  offering,  which  is  at  the  door  of  the  taber- 

8  nacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation.  And  he  shall  take  off  from  it  all  the  fat  ot 
the  bullock  for  the  sin  offering  ;  the  fat  that  covereth  the6  inwards,  and  all  the  fat 

£  that  is  upon  the  inwards,  and  the  two  kidneys,  and  the  fat  that  is  upon  them,  which 
is  by  the  flanks,  and  the  caul  above  the  liver,  with  [on8*]  the  kidneys,  it  shall  he 

10  take  awav,  as  it  was  taken  off  from  the  bullock  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings; 

11  and  the  priest  shall  burn  them  upon  the  altar  of  the  burnt  offering.  And  the  skin 
of  the  bullock,  and  all  his  flesh,  with  his  head,  and  with  his  legs,  and  his  inwards, 

12  and  his  dung,  even  the  whole  bullock  shall  he7  carry  forth  without  the  camp  unto 
a  clean  place,  where  the  ashes  are  poured  out,  and  burn  him  on  the  wood  with  fare : 
where  the  ashes  are  poured  out  shall  he  be  burnt. 

13  And  if  the  whole  congregation8  of  Israel  sin  [err9]  through  ignorance  [inadver- 
tence1], and  the  thing  be  hid10  from  the  eyes  of  the  assembly,8  and  they  have  done 
somewhat  against  any  of  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  concerning  things  which 

14  should  not  be  done,  and  are  guilty  ;  when  the  sin,  which  they  have  sinned  against 
it  is  known,  then  the  congregation  shall  offer  a  young  bullock11  for  the  sin  [a  sin 
offering1']  and  bring  him  before  the13  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation. 

able  (Nam.  xv.  27-31).    The  LXX.  has  imnnriw,  the  Targ.  Onk.  (also  Ben  Uz.  and  Jerus.)  ^tf  3  =  through  error,  so  also 

the  Syr     The  nil  Italic  has  impndmttr.    Aquila  reads  iv  ayvoia,  and  it  was  perhaps  by  a  literal  translation  of  this  that 

•  \  „]  -  came  to  read  per  igMlranli„m,  which  has  been  perpetuated  in  the  A   V. ;  hut  ,„  Hellenistic  Greek  aveem  and  07- 

l^(Hel,.ix.7)bearrall,,  .h-  "  e  given  al Bee  Scbleua.  Lex.  in  LXX.     Through  gomg  «.r,.y  might  better  ex- 

press  the  meaning,  except  that  it  does  not  sufficiently  bring  out  the  distinction  as  in  the  animus  of the  s 

3  Ver.  2.  njm  fMIXO-  The  A.  V.  has  supplied  against,  as  in  the  former  clause,  where  the  construction  is  the  same  ; 
but  there  it  is  required,  and  here  worse  than  useless  to  the  sense.  It  should  be  omitted  as  in  nearly  all  the  ancient  ver- 
sions.    Tne  JO  in  both  clauses  is  to  be  taken  partitively. 

3  Ver.  3.  naE?8S  Prop.  inf.  const.  Kal.,  and  there  used  as  a  noun  —  to  bring  guilt  upon.  So  most  of  the  ancient  ver- 
sions and  the  modern  expositors  generally. 

*  Ver  5    To  anointed  the  LXX.  and  Sam.  Vers,  add  who*  hand  is  consecrated.     The  Sam.  text  has  a  similar  addition. 

6  Ver.  7.  The  Sam.  and  8  MSS.  prefix  the  article  to  Dl,  while  the  Sam.,  3  MSS.,  and  Vulg.,  omit  the  bulla,  L 

«  Ver.  8.  3-ipnJ7;'.  This  is  translated  in  the  A.  vJand  in  the  ancient  versions  as  if  it  were  '•TV/IN  as  in  Ui.  14. 
So  it  must  be  translated,  and  such  is  actually  the  rending  in  the  Sam.  and  many  MSS. 

7  Ver  12  The  Sam  and  LXX.  here  have  the  plural.  Of  course  the  high-priest  did  not  do  this  with  his  own  hands,  but 
is  said  to  do  that  which  he  caused  to  ho  done,  according  to  common  usage  of  all  languages. 

s»  Ver.  9.  On.    See  iii.  4,  Textual  Note  8. 

8  Ver.  13.  rn;-l73  (congregation)  Snp  (assembly)  the  two  words  used  here,  and  Tt/lD  Num.  xvi.  2  and  freq.  havo 
no  difference  in  signification  which  ran  be  Recognized  in  translation.    They  are  nsed  in  apposition. 

»  Ver.  13.  H yj.    In  the  A.  V.  sin  always  in  Lev.  is  the  translation  of  KBIT    This  being  the  only  exception,  should  bo 

TT  T  T 

changed.^  ^  ^  ^  ^^  ^  thfi  ^  here  and  ta  y  %  4  According  to  Delitzsch  it  is  an  old  rule  of  pointing  "  that 
every  consonant  which  followed  a  syllable  terminating  with  a  guttural  should  be  pointed  with  dagesh.  if  the  guttural  was 
to  be  read  with  a  quiescent  sheva  and  not  with  chateph."    Comp.  -|E>sn_Gen.  xlvi.  29  j  Ex.  xiv.  6,   D'/tyP  (according  to 

Bome  copies)  Ps.  x.  1. 

11  Ver.  14.  The  Sam.  and  LXX.  here  add  the  "  without  blemish  "  so  frequently  expressed,  and  always  to  be  un- 
derstood. 

12  Ver.  14.  nxanS.  The  word  is  used  in  both  senses— a  sin,  and  a  sin-offering.    The  context  requires  the  latter  hi  re. 

t   -  : 
It  has  no  article. 

13  Ver.  14.  The  LXX.  anl  Vulg.  add  the  door  of,  which  is  implied. 


LEVITICUS. 


15  And  the  elders  of  the  congregation  shall  lay  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  bul- 
lock before  the  Lord  :  and  the  bullock  shall  be  killed  [one  shall  kill  the  bullock'4] 

16  before  the  Lord.     And  the  priest  that  is  anointed  shall  bring  of  the  bullock's  blood 

17  to  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation :  and  the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger 
in  some  of  the  blood,  and  sprinkle  if  seven  times  before  the  Lord,  even  before  the 

18  vail.  And  he  shall  put  some  of  the  blood  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar16  which  is 
before  the  Lord,  that  is  in  the  taberuacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation,  and  shall 
pour  out  all  the  [other]  blood  at  the  bottom  of  the  altar  of  the  burnt  offering,  which 

19  is  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation.     And  he  shall  take 

20  all  his  fat  from  him,  and  burn  it  upon  the  altar.  And  he  shall  do  with  the  bul- 
lock as  he  aid  with  the  bullock  for  a  [the17]  sin  offering,  so  shall  he  do  with  this: 
and  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  them,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  them. 

21  And  he  shall  carry  forth  the  bullock  without  the  camp,  and  burn  him  as  he  burned 
the  first  bullock:  it18  is  a  sin  offering  for  the  congregation. 

22  When  a  ruler  [prince19]  hath  sinned,  and  done  somewhat  through  ignorance  [in- 
advertence1] against  any  of  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  his  God  concerning 

23  things  which  should  not  be  done,  and  is  guilty ;  or  if  [if  perhaps20]  his  sin,  wherein 
he  hath  sinned,  come  to  his  knowledge ;  he  shall  bring  his  offering,  a  kid  [a  buck21] 

24  of  the  goats,  a  male  without  blemish  :  and  he  shall  lay  his  hand  upon  the  head  of 
the  goat,  and  kill22  it  in  the  place  where  they  kill  the  burnt  offering  before  the 

25  Lord  :  it  is  a  sin-offering.  And  the  priest  shall  take  of  the  blood  of  the  sin  offering 
with  his  finger,  and  put  it  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar  of  burnt  offering,  and  shall 

26  pour  out23  his  blood  at  the  bottom  of  the  altar  of  burnt  offering.  And  he  shall 
burn  all  his  fat  upon  the  altar,  as  the  fat  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings  :  and 
the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  as  concerning  his  sin,  and  it  shall  be 
forgiven  him. 

27  And  if  any  one  of  the  common  people  [any  soul  of  the  people  of  the  land24]  sin 
through  ignorance  [inadvertence1]  whilehvdoeth  somewhat  against  any  ofthecommaiid- 

?8  rnentsof  the  Lord  concerning  things  which  ought  not  to  be  done,  and  be  guilty  j  or  li  [if 
perhaps20]  his  sin,  which  he  hath  sinned,  come  to  his  knowledge:  then  he  shall 
brin  Ais  offering,  a  kid  of  the  goats  [a  she-goat26]  a  female  without  blemish,  for  his 

29  sin  which  he  hath  sinned.     And  he  shall  lay  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the  sin 

30  offering  and  slay  the  sin  offering  in  the  place  of  the  burnt  offering.  And  the 
priest  shall  take  of  the  blood  thereof  with  his  finger,  and  put  it  upon  the  horns  ol 
the  altar  of  burnt  offering,  and  shall  pour  out  all  the  [other]  blood  thereof  at  the 

M  Ver.  15.  Tbe  subject  of  OUVJ  is  one  of  the  elders. 

15  Ver  17  The  ellipsis  supplied  by  U  in  the  A.  V.  is  filled  out  in  the  Sum,  in  one  MS.,  and  in  the  Syr  bv  "  of  the 
Wool-  cJl\lr^TZXh^Z^  are  Ailed  out  in  the  same  version  in  the  following  verses  from  the  preceding 
paragraph. 

16  Ver.  18.  The  Sam.  and  LXX.  unnecessarily  specify  "  altar  of  incense." 

17  Vir.  20.  The  article  of  the  original  should  be  retained  as  the  reference  is  to  the  sin-offering  of  the  high-priest. 

18  Ver.  21.  The  Sam.  and  many  MSS.  have  here  again  the  later  feminine  form  XT]- 

w  Ver.  22.    R'frj.    This  word  variously  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  captain,  chief,  governor,  prince,  and  rufer,  occurs  in  Lev. 

only  her,,  but  very'frequentlv  in  Num.,  where  it  is  translated  captain .in  ch.  ii.  (1! ■  «"»«j.„^jn  cahns,  "hh"-  ju  ^"""it 
once  r«A  xiii.  2,  and  prince  throughout  the  rest  of  the  book  ,42  times)  as  well  as  *™£XuStantSlv  the'  fame  rank 
fi  ,u'r  tirnee  uniformly  translated  ruler.  In  nearly  all  these  p  aces  ,t  refers  to  ^^'^"^i^^aD^lpXd 
and  it  would  be  better  therefore  that  its  translation  should  be  uniform  It  '""^8  lite"  *'  "?,"_%' ,™  '„p.n  r,  t  of 
to  the  b<  ad  of  a  tribe,  or  other  lar^e  division  of  the  people,  whether  of  Israel  or  of  other  natrons •  ^'"»e  '  ,  V  V  and 
'  tie  bribe  i  hi,  ftain."  referring  to  Num.  iii.  24.  A, prince  is  on  the  whole  the  most  common  rendenng  of  the  A.  V.,  and 
expresses  very  well  the  eens*-,  it  is  retained  here.  -rvv 

>  Ver.  23.  The  conjunction  IN  should  be  rendered  if  perhape,  Fuerst,  Gesenius.    The  Syr.  renders  by  ,/,  the  LXX. 

""'•  ZyifiKvjltl  -  a  n^oat,  generally  understood  of  one  older  than  tbe  Wg  or  youug  he-goat  used  in  the  burnt 

and  peace-offeringiWnt,  Knobel).    It  is  often  rendered  Win  the  A.  V     It  is  ^""S^,^^V-^£.*S«: 

'.I.  r,  f.r. ,,,,  is  to  the  Idolatroue  worship  of  the  goat  f,.r  goat-like  de.ty    and '"'«  "'^^^"^^^Vo  Keil. 

It  is  the  kind  of  (coat  used  in  tbe  sin-offering  generally.     Hochart  supposes  it  to  mean  a  goat  ol  a  peculiar 

a  Ver  21.  The  Sam.  pats  tbe  verb  In  the  plural;  so  also  in  ver.  33. 

»  Ver.26.  The  LXX.  and*  MSB.  have  all  his  blood,  as  in  the  other  places  retained  so  tar  a»  "people  <f 

from  tbe  priests  (in  this  case  probably  from  tbe  high-priest)  and  tlie  rulers. 

»  Ver  28.  Jll'l'tf  iB  simply  the  feminine  of  the  word  discussed  uuder  ver.  23. 

«  Ver.  80.  Two  H88.,  ft.  Sam.,  and  the  Syr.,  unnecessarily  add  "of  burnt-offering."    The  Sam.  and  the  LXX.  make 

the  h  nil-"  addition  ut  thu  cud  of  vtr.  34, 


CHAP.  IV.  1-35— V.  1-13.  39 


31  bottom  of  the  altar.26  And  he  shall  take  away  all  the  fat  thereof,  as  the  fat  is  taken 
away  from  off  the  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings  ;  and  the  priest  shall  bum  it  upon  the 
altar  for  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord  ;  and  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for 
him,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him. 

32  Aud  if  he  bring  a  lamb  [a  sheep27]  for  a  sin  offering,  he  shall  bring  it  a  female 

33  without  blemish.     Aud  he  shall  lay  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the  sin-offering, 

34  and  slay  it  for  a  sin  offering  in  the  place  where  they  kill  the  burnt  offering.  And 
the  priest  shall  take  of  the  blood  of  the  sin  offering  with  his  finger,  and  put  it  upon 
the  horns  of  the  altar  of  burnt  offering,  and  shall  pour  out  all  the  [other]  blood 

35  thereof  at  the  bottom  of  the  altar  :  aud  he  shall  take  away  all  the  fat  thereof,  as 
the  fat  of  the  lamb  [sheep27]  is  taken  away  from  the  sacrifice  of  the  pence  offerings  ; 
and  the  priest  shall  burn  them  upon  the  altar,  according  to  [upon28]  the  offerings 
made  by  fire  unto  the  Loud  :  and  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  his  sin 
that  he  hath  committed,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him. 

Chap.  V.  1.  And  if  a  soul  sin,  and  hear  [in  that  he  hear29]  the  voice  of  swearing 
[adjuration30],  and  is  a  witness,  whether  he  hath  seen  or  known  of  it ;  if  he  do  not 

2  utter  it,  then  he  shall  bear  his  iniquity.  Or  it'81  a  soul  touch  any  unclean  thing, 
whether  it  be  a  carcase  of  an  unclean  beast,3"  or  a  carcase  of  unclean  cattle,  or  the 
carcase  of  unclean  creeping  things,  and  (Jit  be  hidden  from  him;  he  also  shall  be 

3  unclean,  and  guilty.  Or  if  he  touch  the  uncleanness  of  man,  whatsoever  unclean- 
ness  it  be  that  a  man  shall  be  defiled  withal,  and  it  be  hid  from  him  ;  when  he  kuow- 

4  eth  of  it,  then  he  shall  be  guilty.  Or  if  a  soul  swear,  pronouncing  [speaking  idly32] 
with  to  lips  to  do  evil,  or  to  do  good,  whatsoever  it  be  that  a  man  shall  pronounce 
[speak  idly32]  with  an  oath,  and  it  be  hid  from  him;  when  he  knoweth  of  it,  then 

5  he  shall  be  guilty  in  one  of  these.     And  it  shall  be,  when  he  shall  be  guilty"  in  one 

6  of  these  things,  that  he  shall  confess  that  he  hath  sinned  in  that  thing:  and  he  shall 
bring  his  trespass  offering  [bring  for  his  trespass3*]  unto  the  Lord,  tor  his  sin  which 
he  hath  sinned,  a  female  from  the  flock,  a  lamb  or  a  kid  of  the  goats  [a  sheep27  or 
a  she-goat25],  for  a  sin  offering;  and  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him 
concerning  his  sin. 

7  And  if  he  be  not  able35  to  bring  a  lamb  [sheep27],  then  he  shall  bring  for  his  tres- 
pass, which  he  hath  committed,  two  turtledoves,  or  two  young  pigeons,  unto  the 

8  Lord;  one  for  a  sin  offering,  and  the  other  for  a  burnt  offering.  And  he  shall 
bring  them  unto  the  priest,  who  shall  offer  that  which  is  for  the  sin  offering  first, 

9  and  wring  [pinch]  off  his  head  from  his  neck,  but  shall  not  divide  it  asunder :  and 
he  shall  sprinkle  of  the  blood  of  the  sin  offering  upon  the  side  of  the  altar ;  and  the 
rest  of  the  blood  shall  be  wrung  [pressed36]  out  at  the  bottom  of  the  altar :  it  is  a 

27  Ver.  32.  t!733  =  a  sheep,  see  Text,  note  6  under  iii.  7. 

»  Ver.  33.  't^H    Sj'.    The  sense  is  here  as  in  iii.  5  upon.    These  heing  special  offerings,  the  daily  burnt-offering  would 

always  have  been  upon  the  altar  before  them,  aud  even  if  that  were  already  wholly  consumed,  the  expression  "  upon  "  it 
could  still  be  natural  iy  used. 

s»  CnAr.  V.    Ver.  1.  "  Particula  1  ante  ru'3l?  hie  usurpatur  oinoAoyticii,  estque  vertenda  juut,  ta  quod,  ut  Gen.  xxvi. 

"r  :  It 
12;  Deut.  xvii.  16. '     Rosenmueller. 

*>  Ver.  1.  n^N-    Commentators  are  generally  agreed  that  this  should  be  translated  adjuration.    The  verb  in  the  fliph. 

is  translated  o  'jure  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  24.     See  Exeg.  Com.     The  Hob.  has  no  word  for  adjuration  as  dis  tinct  from  swearing.     It 
is  expressed  in  the  LXX.  bv  opxtn-juoO. 

81  Ver.  2.  The  full  form  would  bo  "liJ/K    '3;    accordingly   the    Sam.  and   some  MSS.  prefix  'S  here  and  add  VJX 

in  ver.  4.  SIa  Ver.  2. .  See  note  t  on  xi.  2. 

M  Ver.  4.  N£3D7,  NOT,  V"k  "%,  <""  'U-aduisedbj.     Comp.  0aTToAoys'w,  Matt.  vi.  7. 

33  Ver.  5.  For  DCfX"  the  Sam.  and  20  MSS.  here  substitute  KBIT- 

3t  Ver.  6.  DHN,  like  flNDR  is  used  in  the  sense  both  of  trespass  and  trespass-offering.    The  ancient  versions  leave 

the  question  between  them  open.    The  Vulg.  haB  simply  agat  penilmtiam,  LXX.  ola-et  irept  wy  e77ATj/nfxe'A>](re  Kvpiui,  while 
the  Semitic  versions  leave  the  same  doubt  as  the  Hebrew.    Modern  commentators  uie  div.ded,  but  the  weight  of  opinion 

accords  with  the  Exe£.  Com.     At  the  end  of  the  vers.,  the  Sam.  and   t  e   LXX.  have  the  fuller  foim,  "  aud  the  prie.  t  shall 
make  an  atonement  for  him,  for  his  sin  which  be  bath  sinned,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him." 

85  Ver.  7.  IT    J*1* Ji™\    X7~DN1  lit.     //  his  hand  cannot  acquire.     The  Bense  is  well  expressed  by  the  A.  V. 

56  Ver.  9.  riV^  the  translation  of  the  A.  V.  wrung  might  answer  here,  but  as  the  same  word  must  be  trausl  ited pretted 

..  T . 

in  i.  15,  it  Beems  better  to  preserve  uniformity. 


40 


LEVITICUS. 


10  sin  offering.3'  And  he  shall  offer  the  second  for  a  burnt  offering,  according  to  the 
manner  [ordinance]  :  and  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  for  his  sin 
■which  he  hath  sinned,  aDd  it  shall  be  forgiven  him. 

11  But  if  he  be  not  able  to  bring  two  turtledoves,  or  two  young  pigeons,  then  he  that 
sinned  shall  bring  for  his  offering  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah  of  fine  flour  for  a  sin 
offering  :  he  shall  put  no  oil  upon  it,  neither  shall  he  put  any  frankincense  thereon  : 

12  for  it  is  a  sin  offering.57  Then  shall  he  bring  it  to  the  priest,  and  the  priest  shall 
take  his  handful  of  it,  even  a  memorial  thereof,  and  burn  it  on  the  altar,  according 

13  to  [upon38]  the  offerings  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  :  it  is  a  sin  offering.3'  And  the 
priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  as  touching  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned  in 
one  of  these,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him:  and  the  remnant  shall  be  the  priest's, 
as  a  meat  offering  [an  oblation39]. 

87  Vers.  9,  11,  12.  The  Sam.  and  many  MSS.  have  the  later  feminine  form  of  the  pronoun  X'H. 

33  V-^r.  12.  Si*  =  »po»,  as  Hi.  5  ;  iv.  35. 

39  Ver.  13.  Oblation.    Comp.  ii.  1,  Textual  Note  -,  and  Eseg.  at  beginning  of  ch.  ii. 


EXEGETICAL   AND    CRITICAL. 

The  formula  by  which  this  chapter  is  intro- 
duced— And  the  LORD  spake  unto  Moses 
— answering  to  i.  1,  2;  v.  14;  vi.  1 ;  vi.  8,  etc., 
marks  this  passage  as  a  distinct,  portion  of  the 
law.  The  offerings  of  chaps,  i. — iii.,  when 
brought  by  individuals,  were  all  voluntary,  and 
are  recognized  as  already  familiar;  but  in  chaps. 
iv.,  v.  sacrifices  are  appointed  (no  longer  volun- 
tary) for  certain  offences,  and  these  sacrifices 
now  for  the  first  time  receive  names  from  the 
purposes  for  which  they  were  commanded — Sin 
and  Trespass  offerings.  These  specialized  sacri- 
fices were  a  creation  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  are 
therefore  naturally  placed  after  the  more  gene- 
ral sacrifices  of  chaps,  i. — iii.  Lange  says  also: 
"The  former  class  of  sacrifices  refer  to  innate 
sinfulness,  and  in  so  far  forth  to  the  general  par- 
ticipation in  guilt  of  the  offerer  (on  which  ac- 
count throughout  a  "133,  a  covering  of  the  offerer, 
takes  place) ;  but  does  not  have  reference  to  pe- 
culiar personal  transgressions  to  be  atoned  for  by 
the  sin  and  trespass  offerings."  In  the  present 
section  we  have  to  do  only  with  the  sin  offering 
(iv.  1 — v.  13) ;  yet  this  and  the  trespass  offering 
are  closely  related,  and  are  distinguished  only 
as  the  sin  or  the  trespass  comes  into  the  fore- 
ground, so  that  the  line  of  separation  is  not  al- 
ways strongly  marked,  and  in  particular  cases 
might  even  be  difficult  to  trace.  "Sin  is  the 
transgression  of  the  law,"  and  may  involve  no 
further  harm,  and  requires  expiation  only  for  its 
own  guilt;  while  trespass  is  wrong  done  to  ano- 
ther (whether  God  or  man),  and  involves  not 
only  sacrifice  for  its  sin,  but  also  amends  for  its 
harm.  With  neither  were  oblations  or  drink- 
offerings  allowed;  and  when,  in  case  of  extreme 
poverty,  flour  was  permitted  as  a  sin-offering,  it 
must  be  without  oil  or  frankincense  (v.  11). 

Lange  takes  a  somewhat  different  view  of  the 
relation  of  these  two  offerings,  and  consequently 
of  the  proper  analysis  of  this  whole  passage,  iv. 
1 — vi.  7.  The  substance  of  his  views  may  be  ga- 
thered from  the  headings  of  his  several  sub- 
divisions as  follows:  The  Sin  offering  and  the 
Trespass  offering  (iv. — vi.  7).  (</)  The  Sin-of- 
fering and  the  little  Sin  and  Trespass  offering 
(iv.— v.  18).     1.  The  Sin  offering  (iv.  1-21).     2. 


The  little  Sin  offering  (iv.  22-35).  (J)  The 
Trespass  offering.  1.  The  little  Sin  and  Tres- 
pass offering,  or  the  uncleanness  of  the  common 
people  (v.  1-13).  2.  The  great  Trespass  offer- 
ing, or  guilt  offering  (v.  14 — vi.  7).  Accordingly 
he  says:  "The  following  considerations  may 
serve  somewhat  to  disentangle  the  question  how 
the  sections  of  the  sin  offering  and  the  trespass 
offering  are  to  be  separated  from  one  another, 
and  whether  v.  1-13  treats  of  the  sin  offering  or 
of  the  trespass  offering.  There  is,  certainly,  no 
question  that  all  sin  is  at  the  same  time  guilt,  a 
deed  which  has  made  itself  into  an  actual  state 
of  things  which  must  be  atoned  for,  or  has  be- 
come liable  to  punishment.  And  there  is  also  no 
question  that  guilt  in  general  is  also  sin,  although 
as  participation  in  guilt,  it  may  be  widely  sepa- 
rated from  the  centre  of  sinfulness,  as  far  as  the 
disappearing  minimum,  even  until  it  is  said  of 
the  guiltless  Messiah  in  Isa.  liii.  that  He  would 
give  his  life  as  a  trespass  offering — Asham;  and 
from  this  arises  also  the  possibility  that  two 
classes  may  be  formed  in  which  the  one  empha- 
sizes sin  as  such,  while  the  other  emphasizes 
more  the  state  of  guilt.  The  state  of  guilt  may 
be  very  trifling,  as  being  accessory  to  a  guilty 
principal,  or  very  evil  as  an  original  offence ;  in 
all  cases  it  requires  a  proportionate  penance 
(not  expiation)  or  satisfaction.  From  the  inde- 
terminate character  of  the  antithesis,  it  also 
comes  that  there  may  be  a  transitional  form  be- 
tween the  sin  and  the  trespass  offerings — a  form 
of  sin  offerings  which,  at  the  same  time,  becomes 
elevated  as  a  trespass  offering.  There  are  forms 
of  the  predominating  participation  in  guilt,  and 
one  such  we  find  in  the  section  chap.  v.  1-13. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  the  strict  trespass  offer- 
ings which  follow  further  on,  we  shall  take  up 
all  cases  in  which  the  offence  against  the  holy 
places  and  rights  of  Jehovah,  or  in  regard  to  the 
property  of  a  neighbor,  amount  to  an  offence 
that  is  a  violation  of  right,  which  must  be  atoned 
for  by  restitution,  punishment  and  sacrifice. 

"In  chap.  iv.  3  the  sin  of  the  High  Priest 
brings  guilt  on  the  people — that  is,  the  guilt  of 
participation  in  guilt.  Luther  translates 
Di'n  IVOC'N1}  that  he  scandalizes  the  people — a  con- 
ception not  very  different  from  our  own — viz.: 
that  he  brings  upon  them  liability  of  penalty  and 
punishment.     So  it  is  also  with  the  congregation 


CHAP.  IV.  1-35— V.  1-13. 


41 


of  Israel:  it  becomes  guilty  through  its  sin 
(ver.  13).  So  also  with  the  noble  (ver.  22).  So 
too,  at  last,  with  the  common  Israelite  (ver. 
27).  Ought  now  the  section  chap.  v.  1-13  to  be 
(as  Knobel)  only  an  example  to  illustrate  the 
foregoing  transaction  in  the  case  of  the  sin  offer- 
ing of  the  common  Israelite?  Ver.  6  says: 
And  he  shall  bring  his  trespass  offering 
unto  the  LORD  for  his  sin."  [This  is  pro- 
bably the  key  to  the  whole  view  of  Lange.  If, 
however,   Di>'N  be  here   considered  as  standing 

T  T 

not  for  trespass  offering,  but  for  trespass  (see 
Text,  note  34  on  verse  6),  the  view  before  given 
seems  preferable.]  "It  is  true  that  both  vers. 
11  and  12  repeat  the  statement  that  his  offering 
is  a  sin  offering.  But  according  to  the  context, 
the  meaning  of  this  is  that  this  sacrifice  must  be 
treated  entirely  after  the  analogy  of  the  sin  of- 
fering. No  incense  nor  oil  are  to  be  added  to 
this  sacrifice.  The  same  rule  is  applied  to  the 
great  trespass  offerings  that  follow,  chap.  v. 
14  sq.  The  first  instance,  chap.  v.  1,  has  pecu- 
liarly the  character  of  participation  in  guilt. 
The  properly  guilty  person  in  this  case  is  the 
blasphemer;  the  participation  in  guilt  comes 
from  a  soul  hearing  the  curse  and  not  cleansing 
itself  from  defilement  by  giving  information. 
The  view  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  that  "by 
6ilence  aud  looking  on  one  may  become  a  parti- 
cipant in  such  fearful  sins,"  appears  here.  So 
the  touching  a  corpse  is  set  with  the  unclean 
states  of  men  by  its  natural  connection,  and  the 
rash  swearing,  by  traditional  and  common  cus- 
tom. That  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  special 
greater  crimes,  as  they  are  raised  into  a  class  by 
themselves  by  the  introduction  in  ver.  14,  is  the 
gross  violation  of  the  law.  Here,  then,  rightly 
appear  the  actions  in  which  a  man  is  guilty 
against  Jehovah,  i.  e.,  against  His  holy  things  or 
His  law.  The  fraud  of  which  the  sinner  has  at 
last  become  conscious  must  be  atoned  for  in 
most  cases  by  a  restitution  which  was  increased 
by  one-filth  of  the  whole  amount.  But  legal 
restitution  alone  was  not  enough ;  it  must  be 
preceded  (without  mentioning  the  trespass  offer- 
ing elsewhere  prescribed)  by  a  costly  sacrifice 
of  a  ram  worth  two  shekels.  As  religious  atone- 
ment was  of  little  value  alone,  when  social  resti- 
tution was  directed,  so  also  restitution,  as  a  sup- 
plementary payment,  was  of  little  worth  without 
religious  atonement. 

"Now,  on  the  one  hand,  we  must  not  mistake 
the  fact  that  the  section  chap.  v.  14  sq.  draws  a 
distinction  between  those  faults  which  at  the 
same  time  have  become  debts  or  relate  to  customs 
(mostly  legal  transgressions  of  right,  as  viola- 
tions of  the  rights  of  property),  and  the  purely 
religious  faults  in  which  throughout  (with  the 
exception  of  the  case  in  chap.  v.  17-19)  the  sin- 
ner has  only  to  deal  with  God,  and  so  far  the 
newer  division  must  be  considered  right,  as  in 
Knobel  aud  Keil  (and  so  also  in  Kurtz  and 
others).  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must  not  be 
overlooked  that  the  subject  has  already  been 
about  the  offering  of  the  Asham  in  the  section  v. 
1  sq.  [?],  and  this  is  in  favor  of  the  older  opinion 
which  may  be  found  in  the  headings  of  Stier's 
translation.  There  is  also  no  question  that  to 
reduce  the  whole  guilt-idea  to  legal  transgres- 
18 


sions  will  obscure  very  much  the  guilt-idea  in 
the  present  case,  as  when  Knobel  wishes  to 
leave  out  of  consideration  the  passage  Isa.  liii. 

10,  when  he  says  "Di^N  can  be  no  actual  tres- 

T  T 
pass     offering."        According     to    Knobel,    the 

Asham  arises  from  the  rights  of  neighbors.  But 
here  evidently  it  arises  from  the  rights  of  Jeho- 
vah, which  Keil  also  emphasizes,  and  Knobel 
states  indirectly.  But  we  should  rather  say  that 
it  arises  from  the  absolute  right  which  is  consi- 
dered to  be  uuder  Jehovah's  protection,  in  hea- 
ven and  earth,  and  which  has  been  completely 
confused  with  the  guilt-idea  itself  in  the  theology 
of  the  day,  in  which  justice  in  its  many  forms  is 
travestied  by  "Good  disposition  "  (the  substan- 
tive and  the  adjective  are  allowed  to  evaporate 
into  the  adverb).  It  would  have  been  better  to 
have  found  the  key  to  the  conception  of  guilt  in 
Isa.  liii.  For  just  as  the  guilt  of  a  sinner  can 
extend  over  a  community,  so  also  the  exculpation 
wrought  by  the  Redeemer.  The  Dty'N  expresses 
that  man  has  become  guilty,  liable  to  puuish- 
ment,  towards  Jehovah  or  towards  his  fellow- 
man  ;  and  the  emphasis  lies  so  strongly  on  the 
liability  to  punishment  that  the  same  word  de- 
notes at  the  same  time  satisfaction;  and  con- 
versely, the  Hiphil  means  not  merely  to  give  sa- 
tisfaction, but  also  to  bring  over  others  the  ban 
of  guilt  as  a  penalty.  As  concerns  the  varying 
distinction  between  the  respective  sections,  we 
must  especially  notice  that  one  must  proceed 
from  the  distinction  between  the  universal  guilt 
idea  and  the  conception  of  a  legal  fault,  falling 
into  the  theocratic  judicial  sphere.  If  this  dif- 
ference be  held  to,  we  can  certainly  establish 
the  newer  division ;  for  in  the  ritual  of  sa- 
crifice the  distinction  between  the  sin  and 
trespass  offerings  is  not  to  be  mistaken.  Kno- 
bel has  stated  this  difference  accurately,  p.  394 
sq.  It  is  properly  made  prominent  that  the 
trespass-offeriug — as  a  religious  offence  makes 
the  forgiveness  of  God  necessary — may  also  be 
a  sin-offering,  so  that  it  is  frequently  cited  as  a 
sin-offering.  "The  trespass-offering,  it  may 
then  be  said,  was  always  available  only  for  the 
single  Israelite,  and  was  the  same  for  all ;  while 
the  sin-offering  served  also  for  the  whole  people, 
arid  varied  according  to  the  standing  of  the  sin- 
ner in  the  Theocracy  ;  the  trespass-offering  con- 
sisted always  of  sheep,  while  in  the  sin-offering 
all  sacrificial  animals  were  allowed ;  the  tres- 
pass-offering must  be  worth  a  definite  price,  and 
was  not  modified,  in  the  case  of  those  who  were 
unable  to  offer  it,  to  a  pair  of  doves  or  a  meat- 
offering, as  was  the  sin-offering ;  in  the  trespass- 
offering,  as  in  the  burnt-offering  and  thank- 
offering,  the  blood  was  sprinkled  on  the  side  of 
the  altar  of  burnt  offering  (vii.  2) ;  in  the  sin- 
offering,  on  the  other  hand,  departing  from  the 
custom  in  all  other  sacrifices,  it  was  brought 
before  God  (iv.  5);  the  flesh  in  the  trespass- 
offering  always  belonged  to  the  priest  (vii.  6), 
while  in  the  more  especial  sin-offerings  it  was 
burned."  Then  the  distinction  of  the  occasions 
may  he  expressed  as  follows:  1)  Dishonesty 
against  the  revenues  of  the  priests,  as  against 
the  holy  things  of  Jehovah.  2)  Dishonesty  in 
the  due  fidelity  towards  a  neighbor  (in  a  trust, 
in  a  deposit,  in  property  found).     3)  Dishonest 


42 


LEVITICUS. 


use  of  authority  over  a  maid  betrothed  to  ano- 
ther man  (six.  -0).  4)  Defrauding  in  regard 
to  the  preference  of  the  daughters  of  Israel  over 
heathen  women  (Ezra  x.  19).  Besides  these, 
the  violation  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  by  the 
Philistines  (1  Sam.  vi.  3) ;  imperilling  the  con- 
gregation by  the  contagious  leprosy  (xiv.  1:2)  : 
defilement  of  the  Nazarite,  as  weakening  the 
inviolability  of  his  vow  (Num.  vi.  12).  "Ac- 
cording to  these  examples  the  trespass-offering 
is  distinguished  from  the  sin-offering  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner:  it  arises  from  the  right  of  a 
neighbor,  and  rests  upon  a  violation  of  this 
right."  But  Jehovah  too  claims  satisfaction, 
"since  He  has  fixed  the  rights  of  those  pertain- 
ing to  Him."  Or  also  the  right  simply  claims 
satisfaction:  a  particular  instance  is  the  case 
of  a  guilty  person  who  has  gone  astray,  through 
oversight  or  heedlessness,  in  a  way  that  is 
known  to  no  one  but  himself;  who  afterwards 
has  an  uneasy  conscience,  and  then  feels  him- 
self burdened  by  his  misdeed,  and  becomes  con- 
scious of  his  guilt  (v.  17,  18).  Otherwise  in- 
deed, he  would  be  unable  to  atone,  for  instance, 
for  his  false  oath.  With  the  former  division 
one  could  with  propriety  reverse  the  designa- 
tions, and  term  the  sin-offering  the  trespass- 
offering,  and  the  trespass-offering  for  the  most 
part  the  sin-offering,  the  offering  for  real  and 
ideal  transgressions  of  right.  In  this  confusion 
of  ideas  the  manifold  differences  are  not  too 
prominent  as  they  are  cited  in  Knobel,  p.  396, 
Keil,  p.  (53)  316,  Winer  (Schuld  und  Siindop- 
fer)  and  others.  If  we  go  back  briefly  to  the 
ideal  distinctions:  sin,  as  sin,  is  indeed  guilt, 
(car'  £fo,vr>,  the  particular  evil  deed ;  guilt,  as 
such,  on  the  contrary,  is  the  entire  effect  of  sin 
in  its  cosmic  sphere  from  the  bad  conscience 
even  to  death,  to  Sheol,  to  Hell.  Guilt,  as  such, 
falls  within  the  circle  of  evil,  although  the  axiom 
"  guilt  is  the  greatest  of  evils"  refers  to  sin. 
The  sinfulness  in  guilt  is  the  temptation  to  fur- 
ther sinfulness:  it  has,  however,  also  a  natural 
influence,  according  to  which  it  reacts  upon  sin. 
See  the  article  '•  Schuld"  in  Herzog's  Real- 
enrgclopadie.  Guilt  rests  in  the  legal  effect,  there 
must  be  satisfaction  for  it ;  in  the  ethical  effect, 
evil  conscience,  false  position  towards  God, 
temptation  to  new  sin;  in  the  social  effect,  it  lies 
as  a  burden  upon  the  sphere  of  life  that  sur- 
rounds the  sinner,  whether  he  be  high  or  low  ; 
in  the  generic  effect,  it  is  visited  upon  the  chil- 
dren of  the  fathers,  and  becomes  a  universal 
might,  a  cosmic  evil.  Sin  is  solitary,  guilt  is 
common  ("forgive  us  our  trespasses").  It  is 
obvious  that  sin  in  all  cases  is  originally  guilt ; 
but  guilt  in  distinction  from  sin  is,  in  many 
cases,  only  participation  in  sin — accessoriness. 
Even  in  the  section  of  the  great  trespass-offer- 
ing, the  force  of  participation  in  guilt  may  not 
be  entirely  wanting,  for  the  severity  of  the  Le- 
vitical  relations,  the  temptations  which  adhered 
to  the  church  goods  and  lands,  to  property, 
come  into  consideration.  Under  the  law  the 
ignorant  man  is  touched  on  all  sides,  and  is  thus 
constituted  in  some  measure  a  sinner,  an  acces- 
sory through  greater  sinners  who  made  the  law 
necessary.  Sin  is  like  a  stone  cast  into  a  lake; 
guilt  like  the  wave-circles  which  go  out  from  it, 
the  circumference  of  that  cv  il  centre.      Sin,  in 


its  consequences,  is  ideally  an  infinitum,  enmity 
against  God;  guilt,  in  itself  considered,  is  a 
Belf-consuming  finitum,  so  far  as  it  is  not  changed 
into  a  curse  by  its  constant  reciprocity  with  sin. 
Sin  can  only  be  done  away  through  the  reconci- 
liation of  person  to  person;  it  requires  repent- 
ance. Guilt  is  to  be  done  away  by  means  of 
atonement  (voluntary  penance,  not  expiation), 
personal  or  vicarious  restitution;  for,  on  the 
one  hand,  this  of  course  is  preliminary  to  the 
completed  reconciliation,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  breaks  the  way  for  expiation.  See 
the  history  of  Jacob:  the  vision  of  the  heavenly 
ladder  preceded  the  wrestling  at  the  Jabbok. 
Keil  says  Bomewhat  differently :  "As  in  the 
sin-offering  the  idea  of  expiation  or  atonement 
for  sin,  indicated  in  the  sprinkling  of  blood, 
comes  forward,  bo  in  the  trespass-offering  we 
find  the  idea  of  satisfaction  for  the  purpose  of 
restoring  the  violated  rightful  order." 

In  what  follows,  the  views  previously  pre- 
sented will  be  followed,  since  the  rendering  of 
Di/'X  by  trespass  rather  than  by  trespass-offering 
in  v.  6  renders  it  unnecessary  to  enter  upon 
much  of  the  nice  distinctions  here  drawn  by 
Lange,  and  enables  us  clearly  to  separate  the 
sections  of  the  sin  and  the  trespass-offering. 

Lange    continues:    "Ch.   iv.    1.     Sin,    HNQn, 
°  T 

as  missing,  is  in  Leviticus  more  particularly 
missing  in  regard  to  the  holy  fellowship  with 
the  holy  God  through  transgression  of  His  com- 
mand or  violation  of  the  reverence  due  Him. 
It  must,  as  debt,  be  paid  for  by  punishment. 
It  makes  the  sinner  unclean,  so  that  he  cannot 
appear  in  God's  fellowship,  and  hence  unclean- 
uess  is  a  symbolic  representation  of  sin,  and  the 
unclean  needs,  when  cleansed,  a  sin-offering  for 
a  token  and  sign  of  his  cleanness.  It  is  under- 
stood that  the  sin  offering  that  was  introduced 
into  the  law  by  Moses  preceded  the  given  law  ; 
and  so  it  is  easily  to  be  supposed  that  voluntary 
sin-offerings  from  compulsion  of  conscience 
most  probably  must  be  as  old  as  the  sacrifice 
in  general,  as  certainly  in  the  Passover  the 
force  of  the  sin  offering  may  be  plainly  recog- 
nized."— [Lange  must  mean  that  the  more  gene- 
ral sacrifices  of  old  often  included  within  them 
the  idea  of  the  sin  offering,  as  they  did  of  every 
other  sacrifice;  but  the  specialized  sin  offering 
itself,  as  already  pointed  out,  is  not  mentioned 
before  Ex.  xxix.  14,  nor  is  there  any  evidence 
that  it  was  used  or  known  at  an  earlier  date.] — 
"On  the  extra-theocratic  sin  offering  see  Kno- 
bel, p.  386.  But  it  is  not  correct  to  see  with 
Knobel  in  the  death  of  the  sacrificial  animal  an 
actual  satisfactio  vicaria  of  the  sinner,  or  to  find 
in  the  death  of  the  animal  the  expression  that 
the  offerer  had  already  deserved  death.  In 
regard  to  the  first  point,  the  sacrificial  animal 
furnishes  only  in  the  symbolical  se?ise  what  the 
offerer  ought  to  furnish  personally,  but  cannot. 
And  as  to  the  second  point,  the  death-punish- 
ment, in  the  peace-offering,  it  is  self-evident, 
that  the  reference  could  not  be  to  the  punish- 
ment of  death,  and  also  in  the  sin-offering  the 
difference  between  the  Cherem"  [D^n=-  a  curse, 
a  thing  devoted  to  destruction]  "and  the  propi- 
tiation through  the  sacrifice  must  be  considered. 
That  tht  divine  Justice  should  have   punished 


CHAP.  IV.  1-35— V.  1-12. 


43 


an  inadvertence,   njjD'3,   with  death  is  an  over- 

tt  :  * 

straining  of  the  confession  (with  which  the  sac- 
rificer  appeared  before  God),  that  by  this  over- 
sight or  going  astray  he  had  entered  the  paths 
of  death,*  as  .this  idea  indeed  belongs  to  par- 
donable sin.  Otherwise  an  arbitrary  distinction 
would  have  to  be  drawn  between  sin  with  up- 
lifted hand,  and  sin  from  inadvertence,  under 
which  head  must,  be  understood  not  only  sins  of 
ignorance  and  precipitation,  but  also  natural 
weakness  and  heedlessness.  The  turning  point 
of  these  sins  lay  in  contrition.  But  the  sacri- 
ficer  could  in  reality  hardly  satisfy  the  theocratic 
order  by  his  sacrifice;  on  the  religious  side  his 
sacrifice  was  thus  a  confession  of  his  inability 
to  satisfy,  an  appeal  for  mercy;  and  hence  the 
sacrifice  became  a  typical  prophetic  movement 
towards  the  future  satisfaction." 

The  sins  for  which  sin  offerings  were  to  be 
presented  were  offences  against  the  Divine  law 
much  more  in  its  moral  than  in  its  ceremonial 
aspect.  Great  offences  against  civil  society,  such 
as  involuntary  manslaughter  (Num.  xxxv.  10-15; 
Deut.  xix.  1-10),  did  not  come  within  the  scope 
of  these  sacrifices ;  and  minor  breaches  of  the 
ceremonial  law,  such  as  uncleanness  from  contact 
with  the  dead  bodies  of  animals  (Lev.  xi.  24,  28 
or  men  (Num.  xix.  1 1,10,20),  were  otherwise  pro- 
vided for.  The  sin  offering  had  relation  much 
more  to  the  individual  conscience  than  to  the 
theocratic  state  or  the  peculiar  Hebrew  polity. 
In  Num.  xv.  29  its  privileges  are  expressly  ex- 
tended to  the  "  stranger."  But  it  was  not  allowed 
to  be  offered  in  cases  where  no  true  penitence 
could  be  supposed  to  exist,  and  it  was  therefore 
not  permitted  in  the  case  of  presumptuous  or 
defiant  sins  (Num.  xv.  30,  31). 

The  idea  of  vicarious  satisfaction  necessarily 
appears  more  clearly  in  this  specialized  offering 
for  sin  than  in  other  sacrifices  which  were  either 
more  general  in  their  character,  or  specialized 
for  other  purposes.  (The  word  ilNUn  occurs 
several  times  in  Genesis  in  the  sense  of  tin,  but 
never  in  the  sense  of  sin  offering,  before  Ex.  xxix. 
14).  Hence,  in  view  of  the  intrinsic  insufficiency 
of  animal  victims  to  atone  for  moral  offences,  this 
sacrifice  was  emphatically  typical  of  the  true 
Sacrifice  for  sin  to  come.  The  object  of  all  the 
divine  dealings  with  man  has  been  his  restora- 
tion to  communion  with  God  by  the  restoration 
of  his  holiness;  and  the  first  step  to  this  end 
was  necessarily  the  putting  away  of  his  sin. 
Under  the  old  dispensation,  therefore,  the  typi- 
cal sin  offering  was  the  culmination  of  its  whole 
system,  presented  in  the  most  emphatic  form  on 
the  great  day  of  atonement  (chap,  xvi.);  just  as 
under  the  new  dispensation  the  culmination  of 
Christ's  work  for  the  redemption  of  His  people 
was  His  atoning  sacrifice  of  Himself  upon  the 
Cross  of  Calvary. 

Unlike  the  preceding  sacrifices,  the  victim  in 
the  sin  offering  varied  according  to  the  offender's 
rank  in  the  theocracy.  The  ground  of  this  is  to 
be  sought  in  the  conspicuousness  of  the  offence, 
not  at  all  in  its   grossness.     Here,  as  elsewhere, 


*  "It  is  also  a  straining  of  the  text  to  render  the  words: 
"  in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die," 
as  meaning  <:thou  shalt  actually  die  the  death."  Religio- 
moral  death  realizes  itself  gradually.  Indeed,  the  principle 
of  death  is  the  germ  of  death  itaeLf." 


there  was  no  correlation  between  the  value  of 
the  victim  aud  the  magaitude  of  the  sin.  Every 
Bin,  great  or  small,  of  the  same  class  of  persons 
was  expiated  by  the  same  means;  a  victim  of 
higher  value  was  only  required  in  consequence 
of  official  responsibility  and  position,  and  the 
consequently  greater  strain  which  offences 
brought  upon  the  theocracy.  There  was  no 
such  gradation  in  the  Trespass  offering,  which 
was  related  more  to  the  harm  done  than  to  the 
sin  committed.  Four  grades  are  prescribed: 
for  the  sin— (1)  of  the  high-priest  (3-12);  |2) 
of  the  whole  congregation  (13-21);  (3)  of  a 
prince  (22-26);  (4)  of  any  of  the  people  of  the 
land  (27-35).  After  this  follows  an  enumeration 
of  special  sins  for  which  confession  should  be 
made  and  sin  offerings  offered  (v.  1-6),  with  the 
allowance  of  inferior  offerings  in  case  of  poverty 
(7-13). 

Vers.  1,  2.  The  general  condition  of  the  sin 
offering. 

Ver.  2.  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel. 
— -It  is  always  to  be  remembered  that  these  laws 
are  given  to  a  people  already  in  covenant  rela- 
tion to  God,  and  the  essential  point  of  that  cove- 
nant was  the  promise  of  the  final  victory  over 
sin  in  the  person  of  "the  seed  of  the  woman." 
The  laws  given  until  He  should  come  are  therefore 
necessarily  based  upon  His  coming,  and  look 
forward  to  Him. 

Any  of  the  commandments. — ^30  in  a 
partitive  sense.  At  the  close  of  this  verse  must 
be  understood  some  such  clause  as  he  shall  briny 
an  offering  for  his  sin.  The  actual  apodosis  of  the 
verse  is  the  whole  following  chapter,  and  not 
ver.  3,  which  relates  only  to  the  high-priest. 

Vers.  3-12.  The  sin  offering  of  the  high-priest. 
Lange  here  says  :  "  It  must  be  noticed  that  the 
high-priest  could  become  the  most,  guilty  of  all, 
which  the  haughtiness  of  the  hierarchy  never 
thought  of  enough  ;  that  the  whole  congregation 
was  rated  as  one  personality  equal  in  rauk  to 
him  ;  that  the  prince  was  only  considered  slightly 
greater  than  the  common  man  (the  difference  is 
he  goats,  she  goats,  or  an  ewe)  ;  and  that  for  the 
poor,  in  the  section  v.  1-13,  there  were  two  more 
peculiar  modifications." 

Ver.  3.  The  priest  that  is  anointed. — 
LXX.:  apxiepsvc,  821  Wn2_  =  high-priest,  Tar- 
gums.  The  high-priest  is  so  called  by  reason 
of  the  peculiar  authority  by  which  he  alone  was 
consecrated  to  his  office  (Ex.  xxix.  7;  chap.  viii. 
12).  The  anointing  of  all  the  priests  was  indeed 
expressly  commanded  (Ex.  xxviii.  41;  xl.  151, 
and  is  recognized  as  having  taken  place  vii.  36; 
x.  7  ;  Num.  iii.  3 ;  yet  in  the  account  of  the  con- 
secration, chap,  viii.,  no  other  anointing  of  the 
common  priests  is  mentioned  than  that  Moses 
sprinkled  both  them  and  Aaron  with  "the  an- 
ointing oil"  and  the  blood  from  the  altar.  Ac- 
cording to  the  best  Jewish  authorities,  however, 
the  priests  were  anointed  with  the  finger  upon 
the  forehead.  Outram  places  the  distinction  in 
the  fact  that  each  successive  high-priest  was  per- 
sonally anointed,  while  the  others  were  only  an- 
ointed once  for  all  in  the  persons  of  Aaron's  im- 
mediate sons.  Whatever  may  be  the  truth  in  re- 
gard to  these  things,  the  high-priest  is  evidently 
regarded  in  a  peculiar  sense  as  anointed,  and  is 


44 


LEVITICUS. 


generally  designated  in  Lev.  (iv.  5,  1G;  vi.  22; 
xvi.  32)    as   the    anointed   priest.       He    is   also 

called  the  Vnjri  'y\27\_=great  priest  (xxi.  10 ; 
Num.  xxxv.  25.  28  bis:  Josh.  xx.  6),  and  in  later 
times  the  head  or  chief  priest  (2  Kings  xxv.  18; 
2  Chr.  xix.  11),  or  simply  Me  priest,  /car'  cjo.rtyK 
(1  Kings  ii.  35,  etc.). 

Do  sin. — Origen  (Horn.  II.  in  Lev.  gl)  ob- 
serves that  inadvertence  is  not  specified  in  the 
case  of  the  high-priest.  It  must,  of  course,  be 
supposed  in  view  of  the  general  principles  on 
which  sacrifices  were  allowed  at  all;  but  it  pro- 
bably was  not  written  in  the  law  that  the  in- 
firmity of  the  high-priest  might  not  be  made  too 
prominent.  . 

To  the  guilt  of  the  people,  DJ'H  nntfSO— 
t.  e.,  to  bring  upon  the  people  the  guilt  of  his  own 
transgression.  It  is  an  undue  restriction  of  the 
sense  of  these  words  to  limit  them  to  the  sins 
committed  by  the  high-priest  in  his  official  capa- 
city. Such  sins,  of  course,  did  brinj  guilt  upon 
the  people  (Lev.  x.  17;  Mai.  ii.  7,  8);  but  over 
and  above  this,  nothing  can  be  clearer  in  his- 
tory, both  under  the  old  covenant  and  in  the 
world  at  large,  than  that  God  had  so  constituted 
men  with  a  federal  as  well  as  individual  relation, 
that  the  sins  of  the  head,  whether  of  the  nation, 
the  community,  or  the  family,  entail  suffering 
upon  its  members.  The  high-priest  as  the  head 
of  the  theocracy  could  not  sin,  but  that  the  whole 
body  of  Israel  should  feel  its  effects.  The  dis- 
tinction may  indeed  be  made  between  natural 
and  moral  consequences,  between  earthly  and 
future  punishments ;  still  the  two  things  are  so 
intimately  connected,  a  debasing  of  the  moral 
sense  of  the  community  is  so  much  the  effect  of 
the  unfaithfulness  of  its  head  that  the  spiritual 
condition  of  the  Israelites,  following  the  general 
law,  was  largely  affected  by  that  of  their  high- 
priest,  so  that  his  sins  did  indeed  "bring  guilt 
upon  the  people." 

A  young  bullock  •without  blemish. — 
The  high-priest's  sin  offering  was  the  same  as 
that  of  the  whole  congregation  (ver.  14),  not 
merely  because  of  the  conspicuousness  of  his  po- 
sition and  of  the  gravity  of  sin  in  one  who  should 
be  the  leader  to  all  holiness;  but  especially  (see 
ver.  3)  because  of  his  representative  character 
and  his  federal  headship  mentioned  above.  Ac- 
cording to  Jewish  tradition,  if  the  bullock  of  the 
high-priest  and  the  bullock  of  the  congregation 
stood  together  ready  for  sin  offerings,  the  former 
had  the  preference  in  every  way.  There  was  a 
careful  gradation  of  the  victims  for  the  sin  offer- 
ing :  the  high  priest  and  the  whole  congregation 
offered  a  male — a  young  bullock;  the  prince  of- 
fered also  a  male,  but  of  the  goats  (ver.  23); 
the  people  offered  a  female  of  either  the  goats 
(ver.  28)  or  the  sheep  (ver.  32).  There  was  also 
a  corresponding  gradation,  but  with  fewer 
steps,  in  the  ritual  in  regard  to  the  blood,  and 
also  in  the  disposition  of  the  flesh.     See  below. 

Ver.  4.  The  presentation,  laying  on  of  hands, 
and  slaughtering,  were  the  same  (vers.  4.  14, 
15,  23,  24),  as  in  the  case  of  other  sacrifices 
(i.  3-5). 

VerB.  5-7.  And  the  priest  that  is  anointed 
shall  take. — At  the  pointof  the  treatment  of  the 
blood  the  difference  between  the  ritual  of  the  sin 


offerings  and  the  other  sacrifices  begins,  and  this 
treatment  differs  somewhat  in  the  several  sin  of- 
ferings themselves.  In  this  case,  the  high- 
priest,  who  was  himself  the  offerer,  brought 
some  of  the  blood  to  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation;  afterwards  the  person  officiating  is 
designated  simply  the  priest.  From  this  it  has 
been  argued  that,  as  the  high-priest  was  the  one 
whose  sin  was  to  be  atoned  for,  the  service  was 
here  taken  up  on  his  behalf  by  another  priest; 
but  there  is  precisely  the  same  change  at  the 
same  point  in  the  following  offering  for  the 
whole  congregation  (vers.  16,  17),  and  the  high- 
priest  certainly  officiated  throughout  on  the  great 
day  of  atonement  (chap.  xvi. );  moreover,  the 
fact  of  his  offering  the  sin  offering  for  himself  as 
well  as  for  the  people  is  established  by  Heb. 
v.  3. 

Ver.  6.  Sprinkle  of  the  blood. — The  word 
n'n  is  different  from  p"H  used  for  sprinkle  in 
chaps,  i.  and  iii.  in  view  of  the  much  smaller 
quantity  of  blood  used  here.  It  is  difficult  to 
express  this  in  English  translation,  though  the 
difference  is  observed  in  the  LXX.  and  Vulg. 

Seven  times. — The  seven-fold  sprinkling  of 
blood  is  frequently  commanded  (ver.  17:  xvi.  17, 
19;  Num.  xix.  4)  always  in  connection  with  sin 
offering,  or  (xiv.  7,  27)  with  the  purification  of 
leprosy.  In  consecrations,  too,  there  was  a 
seven-fold  sprinkling  of  oil  (viii.  11;  xiv.  16),  and 
frequently  the  number  seven  is  designated  for 
the  victims  in  sacrifice  (xxiii.  18;  Num.  xxiii. 
1,4,14.29;  xxviii.  11,  19,  27;  xxix.  2,  8,  13, 
3(3).  The  same  number  also  appears  in  many 
other  particulars  connected  with  the  divine  ser- 
vice, and  has  always  been  considered  as  symbo- 
lical of  completeness  and  perfection.  The  num- 
ber is  so  frequent  in  the  divine  word,  as  well  as 
in  the  ordering  of  nature,  that  it  must  be  thought 
to  have  its  foundation  in  some  unfathomable 
heavenly  relations.  Its  use  in  connection  with 
the  sin  offering  is  plainly  to  give  emphasis  to  the 
typical  completeness  of  the  propitiation. 

Before  the  veil  of  the  sanctuary. — There 
is  a  variety  of  opinion  as  to  precisely  where  the 
blood  was  sprinkled.  The  LXX.:  Kurd  to  Kara- 
-haaua,  and  the  Vulg.:  contra  velum,  seem  to 
have  supposed  it  was  upon  the  veil  itself.  It 
is  more  probable  that  the  high-priest,  dipping 
his  finger  in  the  blood  at  the  entrance  of  the 
sanctuary,  sprinkled  it  before  him  towards  the 
veil  as  he  advanced  to  the  altar  of  incense.  The 
object  was  "plainly  the  presenting  of  the  blood 
before  Jehovah,  the  manifestation  of  whose  pre- 
sence was  on  the  ark  just  within  the  veil.  "  The 
ohjective  point  was  not  the  veil,  but  the  ark  of 
the  covenant."   Lange. 

Ver.  7.  Upon  the  horns  of  the  altar  of 
sweet  incense — the  golden  altar  which  stood 
immediately  before  the  veil.  It  was  only  in  the 
case  of  the  sin-offerings  for  the  high-priest  and 
for  the  whole  people  (ver.  18)  that  the  blood  was 
brought  to  this  altar — doubtless  on  account  of 
the  especial  gravity  of  the  sins  to  be  atoned  for; 
in  case  of  the  other  sin  offerings  the  blood  was 
put  on  the  horns  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering, 
(vers.  25,  30,  34)  which  stood  in  the  court  with- 
out. It  was  to  be  put  in  either  case  upon  the 
horns  of  the  altar  because  in  these  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  altar  culminated,  and  in  the  sin 


CHAP.  IV.  1-35— V.  1-13. 


45 


offering,  as  has  already  appeared,  and  will  still 
more  fully  appear,  the  utmost  emphasis  was  to 
be  given  to  every  part  of  the  ritual  of  propitia- 
tion. 

Shall  pour  all  the  blood. — But  very  little 
of  the  blood  had  thu3  far  been  used ;  the  re- 
mainder— all  the  blood — was  to  be  poured  out  at 
the  foot  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  the  place 
to  which  all  blood  of  the  sacrifices  not  otherwise 
required  was  to  be  brought;  it  had  no  sacrificial 
significance.  During  the  life  in  the  wilderness 
the  blood  of  the  comparatively  small  number  of 
sacrifices  was  here  absorbed  by  the  earth  ;  later, 
in  the  temple  conduits  were  arranged  by  which 
it  was  carried  off  into  the  valley  of  the  Kedron. 

Vers.  8-10.  The  fat  of  the  sin-offering  was 
to  be  treated  in  the  same  way  as  that  of  the 
peace  offering,  only  that  it  is  not  said  that  it 
shall  be  burned  "upon  the  burnt  offering"  since 
when  both  were  offered  the  sin  offering  came 
first  (xvi.  11,  15,  24)  ;  neither  is  the  burning 
of  the  fat  described  as  "  an  offering  made  by 
fire,  of  a  sweet  savor  unto  the  Lord." 

Vers.  11,  12.  The  disposition  of  the  rest  of 
the  victim,  i.  «.,  of  the  whole  animal  except 
the  blood  and  the  fat,  was  the  same  in  the 
sin  offering  of  the  high-priest  and  of  the  whole 
congregation  (vers.  20,  21).  The  difference  in 
the  treatment  of  the  flesh  of  these  from  that  of 
other  sin  offerings  is  determined  by  the  treat- 
ment of  the  blood  (vi.  30).  When  the  blood  had 
been  brought  within  the  sanctuary,  the  flesh 
must  be  wholly  burned  ;  yet  not  burned  as  a  sa- 
crifice, the  word  'pt?  being  never  used  in  that 
sense. 

Without  the  camp. — No  flesh  of  a  sin-offer- 
ing might  be  burned  upon  the  altar,  because  the 
nature  of  the  offering  was  purely  propitiatory, 
and  it  did  not  admit  of  being  so  used  as  to  be 
called  "  the  food  of  the  offering  made  by  fire 
unto  the  Lord  "  (see  on  iii.  11).  It  is  described 
as  "  most  holy"  (vi.  25),  and  unlike  the  flesh  of 
any  other  sacrifice,  affected  everything  with 
which  it  came  in  contact  (vi.  26-28) ;  whatever 
it  touched  must  either  be  destroyed  or  specially 
purified.  This  was  the  law  for  all  sin-offerings, 
and  a  further  law  comes  into  play  in  regard  to 
those  sacrifices  (that  of  the  high-priest  and  that 
of  the  whole  congregation)  whose  blood  was 
brought  within  the  sanctuary  (vi.  30).  Their 
flesh  was  strictly  forbidden  to  be  eaten ;  and  it 
remained  that  it  must  be  destroyed  in  some  other 
way.  Hence  the  command  that  it  should  be 
"burned  without  the  camp."  Yet  this  was  not 
a  mere  convenience,  resorted  to  because  there 
was  nothiog  else  to  be  done  with  it.  The  burn- 
ing without  the  camp  had  a  deep  symbolical 
teaching  of  sufficient  prominence  to  be  referred 
to  in  Heb.  xiii.  11,  12,  and  applied  to  Christ. 
The  ground  of  the  law  seems  to  be  that  the  flesh 
of  all  sin  offerings  was  in  a  peculiar  sense  "holy" 
— devoted,  under  the  ban — because  they  were 
for  the  propitiation  for  sin ;  yet  a  gradation  was 
to  be  observed  between  them  in  this  as  in  other 
respects.  Their  blood  had  been  offered  before 
the  Lord,  but  when  the  blood  had  been  offered 
in  a  more  peculiar  and  emphatic  way  by  bring- 
ing it  within  the  sanctuary  itself;  a  correspond- 
ing emphasis  must  mark  the  treatment  of  the 


flesh  by  carrying  it  forth  to  burn  without  the 
camp.  The  red  heifer,  whose  ashes  were  to  be 
used  for  purification,  (Num.  xix.)  was  to  be 
burned  in  the  same  way.  The  sinfulness  of  sin 
and  the  importance  and  sacredness  of  everything 
connected  with  its  propitiation  were  thus  set  be- 
fore the  people  in  the  strongest  light. 

Unto  a  clean  place — not  carelessly  any- 
where, lest  it  might  happen  to  be  to  an  "un- 
clean place"  (xiv.  40) ;  but  -where  the  ashes 
are  poured  out,  which  was  not  merely  "clean," 
but  being  used  only  in  connection  with  sacred 
things,  had  itself  acquired  a  certain  sacred  as- 
sociation. The  word  t0ff,  as  already  noted,  in- 
dicates that  the  burning  itself  was  not  sacrificial. 
The  same  word  is  used  for  the  burning  of  the 
red  heifer,  Num.  xix.  5.  No  especial  sin  offer- 
ing is  provided  for  the  ordinary  priest.  It  was 
the  spirit,  of  the  law  to  have  as  little  as  possible 
of  the  caste  relation  about  the  priests,  and  in  all 
matters  in  which  they  were  not  necessarily  se- 
parated by  their  official  functions,  to  treat  them 
as  ordinary  citizens.  Their  sin-offering  was 
doubtless  the  same  with  that  of  "any  one  of  the 
people  of  the  land." 

Vers.  13-21.  The  sin-offering  of  the  whole 
congregation. 

If  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel  sin. 
— Prominent  among  the  ways  in  which  a  whole 
congregation  might  sin  are  these  :  The  civil 
ruler  might  do  that  which  involved  the  nation  in 
sin,  and  brought  down  punishment  upon  it,  as 
in  Saul's  slaughter  of  the  Gibeonites,  or  David's 
numbering  of  the  people  ;  a  single  individual  by 
an  act  which  caused  a  breach  of  the  divine  com- 
mands given  to  the  whole  people,  might  bring 
sin  upon  them  all,  as  in  the  case  of  Achan,  Josh, 
vii.  1 ;  or  the  people  generally  might  commit 
some  special  sin,  as  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  32,  or  fall 
inio  some  habitual  neglect  of  the  divine  com- 
mands, as  in  regard  to  the  Sabbatical  year  (2 
Chr.  xxxvi.  21),  and  the  neglect  of  tithes  and 
offerings  for  which  they  are  so  frequently  re- 
proved by  the  later  prophets. 

Through  inadvertence. — There  were  two 
kinds  of  such  sin :  first,  inadvertence  of  conduct, 
where  the  sinfulness  of  the  act  would  be  ac- 
knowledged when  attention  was  called  to  it ;  and 
secondly,  inadvertence  of  the  law,  when  the  act 
would  not  be  known  to  be  sinful  until  the  law 
had  been  explained.  In  either  case  there  would 
be  no  consciousness  or  intention  of  sin,  and  the 
thing  would  be  hid  from  the  eyes  of  the 
assembly. 

And  are  guilty. — Every  transgression  of  the 
divine  law  brought  guilt,  whether  through  a 
faulty  heedlessness  of  conduct,  or  a  criminal 
ignorance  of  the  law  which  had  been  given. 
This  principle  is  abundantly  recognized  in  the 
New  Testament. 

Vers.  14-21.  The  ritual  of  the  sin  offering  for 
the  whole  congregation  is  the  same  as  that  for 
the  high-priest.  The  victim  prescribed  here  is 
a  bullock ;  in  Num.  xv.  24  a  kid  in  addition  is 
required  for  sins  of  inadvertence  of  the  congre- 
gation. Either  the  law  was  modified,  which 
seems  unlikely,  or  else  the  two  requirements 
have  reference  to  some  distinction  in  the  occa- 
sion or  character  of  the  sin,  such  as  in  one  case 


46 


LEVITICUS. 


Bins  of  omission,  in  the  other  of  commission. 
There  was  also  another  and  very  peculiar  sin- 
offering  for  the  congregation  prescribed  on  the 
especial  occasion  of  the  great  day  of  atonement 
(xvi.  5).  The  high-priest's  sin  offering  is  there 
unchanged  ;  but  that  for  the  people  is  highly 
altered  in  view  of  the  especial  purpose  of  the 
day. 

Ver.  15.  The  elders — since  the  congregation 
could  only  perform  the  acts  required  of  the  of- 
ferer by  means  of  their  representatives. 

Ver.  20.  And  the  priest  shall  make  an 
atonement  for  them,  and  it  shall  be  for- 
given them. — This  naturally  was  not  said  in 
regard  to  the  high-priest's  own  sin  offering,  but 
is  repeated  in  connection  with  those  that  follow 
(vers.  26,  31,  35;  v.  6,  10,  13),  and  elsewhere  in 
the  same  connection  (Num.  xv.  25,  28) ;  also  in 
connection  with  the  trespass  offering  (v.  16,  18; 
vi.  7;  xix.  22).  It  is  also  used  in  connection 
with  the  purificatory  offerings,  the  change  being 
made  from  forgiveness  to  cleansing  as  the  result  of 
the  atonement  (xii.  7,  8;  xiv.  20,  53;  Num.  viii. 
21).  The  use  of  the  simpler  form  "make  atone- 
ment for  him"  in  connection  with  the  burnt- 
offering  has  already  been  noticed.  The  priest 
in  these  cases  unquestionably  acted,  and  was  un- 
derstood by  the  people  to  act,  in  a  mediatorial 
capacity.  133.  as  noticed  under  i.  4,  means 
literally,  to  cover,  to  put  out  of  sight,  to  hide.  What 
is  promised  here  is  of  course  not  that  God  will 
cause  to  be  undone  the  wrong  that  has  been 
done  ;  but  that  He  will  so  put  it  out  of  His  sight 
that  the  sinner  may  stand  without  fault  in  His 
presence.  See  the  various  expressions  to  this 
effect  in  the  prophets,  e.g.,  Ps.  lxxxv.  2;  eiii. 
12;  xxxviii.  17;  xliii.  25;  xliv.  22;  Jer.  xxxi. 
34;  Ezek.  xviii.  22;  xxxiii.  16:  Mic.  vii.  18,19, 
etc.  This  atonement  was  thus  effectual  in  re- 
moving the  guilt  of  all  transgression  (other  than 
wilful)  against  the  divine  law.  Hence  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  sin-offering  could  only  have  been  de- 
rived from  its  typical  relation  to  Him  who  was 
the  Propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 
(1  Jno.  ii.  2). 

Vers.  22-26.   The  sin  offering  for  a  Prince. 

The  ritual  in  this  case  differs  from  that  iu  the 
previous  cases,  first  in  the  selection  of  the  vic- 
tim, which  must  now  be  a  he-goat  instead  of  a 
bullock;  and  secondly,  in  that  the  blood  was  not 
presented  within  the  sanctuary,  which  involved 
consequently  a  difference  ia  the  disposition  of 
the  flesh; 

Ver.  24.  In  the  place  'where  they  kill  the 
burnt  offering — i.e.,  the  burnt -offering  "of 
the  flock,"  on  the  north  side  of  the  altar,  i.  11. 

Ver.  26.  The  horns  of  the  altar  of  burnt 
Offering. — In  this  and  the  following  cases,  as 
the  sin  was  less  extensive  in  its  effects,  so  the 
ritual  was  far  more  simple.  There  was  no 
sprinkling  of  blood  before  the  veil,  and  the  great 
altar  in  the  court  was  substituted  for  the  altar 
of  incense  within  the  sanctuary.  The  fat  was 
burned  as  before;  on  the  disposition  of  the  flesh, 
see  vi.  26-29. 

Vers.  27-35.  The  sin  offering  for  one  of  the 
pcopli'. 

In  this  case  the  victim  is  changed  to  a  female, 
but  the  ritual  remains  the  same  in  all  respects 


as  in  the  sin  offering  of  the  prince.  An  option 
was  allowed  as  to  the  victim  whether  it  should 
be  of  the  goats,  which  seems  to  have  been  pre- 
ferred (vers.  28-31),  or  of  the  sheep   (vs.  32-35). 

Chap.  v.  1-13.  Certain  specified  sins  and  the 
sin-offering  for  them. 

There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  com- 
mentators as  to  whether  this  section  should  be 
connected  with  the  sin-offerings  which  precede, 
or  with  the  trespass  offerings  which  follow.  See 
Lange's  discussion  under  iv.  1.  The  chief  ar- 
gument for  the  latter  is  from  the  use  of  the 
word  lOi^X,  ver.  6  (see  below),  which,  however, 
rightly  understood,  does  not  bear  out  the  infer- 
ence. On  the  other  hand,  these  verses  are  dis- 
tinctly a  part  of  the  same  divine  communication 
begun  iv.  1,  while  another  begins  at  v.  14;  the 
word  sin-offering  is  expressly  used  throughout 
(vers.  6,  7,  9,  11);  and  the  idea  of  compensation 
for  the  harm  done,  prominent  in  the  trespass 
offering  (especially  ver.  16),  only  slightly  ap- 
pears (ver.  6)  in  these  offerings.  They  are 
reckoned  with  the  sin  offerings  by  Knobel  and 
Keil.  They  may  perhaps  be  considered  as  some- 
what intermediate  between  the  ordinary  sin 
offering  and  the  trespass  offering,  yet  belougiug 
iu  the  category  of  the  former.  The  sins  for 
which  they  were  to  be  offered  were  of  a  less 
flagrant  character  than  those  of  eh.  iv. 

Four  particular  cases  of  inadvertent  sins  are 
first  mentioned,  vers.  1—4  (for  vers.  2  and  3  are 
clearly  to  be  distinguished) ;  and  then  confession 
(ver.  5)  and  an  offering  (vers.  6-13)  is  required 
for  each.  The  normal  offering  is  prescribed  in 
ver.  6,  a  substitute  allowed  in  case  of  poverty, 
vers.  7-10,  and  a  further  substitute  in  case  of 
extreme  poverty,  vers.  11-13.  Only  in  regard  to 
these  substitutes  is  the  ritual  given,  that  for  the 
normal  sin  offering  having  been  already  de- 
scribed in  ch.  iv. 

Ver.  1.  The  case  here  specified  is  that  of  a 
witness  put  upon  oath  who  withholds  testimony 
as  to  that  which  is  within  his  own  certain  know- 
ledge— 1J?  XsTll.  It  is  the  omission,  according 
to  our  phraseology,  "  to  tell  the  whole  truth." 
It  may  cover  also  the  case  of  neglect  to  testify 
when  a  public  demand  for  information  has  been 
made  with  an  adjuration;  St.  Augustine  (Quest, 
in  Lev.  I.)  and  Theodoret  extend  it  also  to  the 
case  of  hearing  testimony,  known  to  be  false, 
given  under  oath.  The  case  of  giving  positive 
false  witness  is  quite  a  different  one,  and  is 
treated  in  Deut.  xix.  16-19. 

Adjuration. — In  the  forms  of  Jewish  trial, 
the  witness  did  not  himself  utter  the  oath,  or 
express  his  assent  to  it,  but  was  adjured  by  the 
magistrate.  Comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  63 ;  2  Chron. 
xviii.  15. 

Whether  he  hath  seen  or  known. — This 
covers  both  the  cases  of  eye-witness  and  of 
knowledge  derived  from  any  other  source. 

Bear  his  iniquity. — Until  purged  in  the 
way  herein  provided.  The  expression  is  a  very 
common  one  in  the  law  (vii.  18;  xvii.  16;  xix. 
8;  xx.  17;  xxiv.  15;  Num.  v.  31;  ix.  13; 
xiv.  33,  34,  etc.),  and  means  that  he  shall  endure 
the  punishment  of  the  sin,  whether  in  its  natural 
consequences  or  in  positive  inflictions.  It  is 
used  both  with  refereuce  to  capital  sins  and  also 


CHAP.  IV.  1- 


-V.  1-13. 


47 


to  those  which  might  be  expiated  by  sacrifice. 
If  the  sacrifice  were  not  offered,  the  sinner  mast 
bear  the  consequences  of  his  sin.  In  this  case 
confession  (ver.  5)  was  a  necessary  condition  of 
the  sin-offering;  therefore  if  he  do  not  utter 
it,  for  without  this  there  could  be  no  desire  to 
be  again  at  one  with  God.  and  hence  no  place 
for  the  offering  of  sacrifice. 

Ver.  2.  The  second  case  is  that  of  uncleanness 
from  touching  the  carcase  of  any  unclean  ani- 
mal, and  was  a  sin  of  a  ceremonial  character. 

It  be  hidden  from  him. — For  the  unclean- 
ness of  this  and  the  following  verse  simple  and 
speedy  forms  of  purification  were  provided  in 
case  immediate  action  were  taken  (xi.  24,  25,  28, 
SB,  40;  xv.  5,  8,  21;  Num.  xix.  22);  but  if  it 
were  neglected  or  unobserved,  the  defilement 
still  actually  existed,  and  as  the  offender  was  in 
danger  of  communicating  his  own  uncleanness 
to  others,  anil  also  of  constant  violation  of  the 
precepts  of  the  law,  it  must  be  expiated  by  sac- 
rifice. On  the  connection  between  uncleanness 
and  sin,  see  preliminary  note  to  ch.  xi. 

Ver.  3.  Orif  he  touch  the  uncleanness  of 
man. — A  special  case  is  made  of  this  in  order, 
as  everywhere  in  the  law,  to  emphasize  the  dis- 
tinction between  man  and  the  lower  animals. 
Thus  while  observed  impurity  from  contact  with 
the  carcase  of  an  unclean  animal  was  removed 
at  even  after  washing  the  clothes  (xi.  24,  etc.), 
and  neglected  might  be  expiated  by  the  sin- 
offering,  the  impurity  from  contact  with  the 
human  dead  body  continued  seven  days,  and 
required  repeated  purifications  (Num.  xix.  11- 
16);  and  neglected,  the  offender  defiled  the 
tabernacle,  and  must  "be  cut  off  from  Israel." 
The  various  kinds  of  uncleanness  in  man  are 
detailed  in  chs.  xi.-xv. 

When  he  knoweth  of  it. — This  expression 
is  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  "  it  be  hid- 
den from  him"  of  ver.  2.  Of  course  while  the 
defilement  was  "hidden"  there  could  be  no 
consciousness  of  guilt,  nor  of  moral  sin;  yet  the 
transgression  of  the  law  was  an  existing  fact, 
and  entailed  its  consequences.  When  it  was 
brought  to  the  offender's  knowledge,  then  he 
was  guilty  in  the  further  sense  that  he  was 
bound  to  remove  the  already  existing  guilt  by 
confession  and  sacrifice. 

Ver.  4.  The  fourth  and  last  case  specified  is 
that  of  careless  or  forgotten  oaths,  not  embra- 
cing the  breach  of  the  third  commandment;  but 
the  neglect  or  forgetfulness  to  perform  an  oath 
(such  as  might  be  uttered  in  recklessness  or 
passion). — To  do  evil,  or  to  do  good.— That 
is  to  do  anything  whatever.  Comp.  Num.  xxiv. 
13  ;  Isa.  xli.  23. 

Ver.  5.  And  it  shall  be,  when. — A  form 
to  introduce  the  apodosis  to  each  of  the  previous 
verses. 

He  shall  confess. — This  applies  to  the  par- 
ticular sins  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verses, 
not  to  the  sin-offering  in  general.  It  is  also 
required  in  the  case  of  the  trespass  offering, 
Num.  v.  6,  7.  According  to  Jewish  tradition  a 
prayer  and  confession  accompanied  the  laying 
on  of  the  hand  in  all  offerings.  This  is  a  dis- 
tinct acknowledgment  of  the  particular  fault, 
apparently  before  presenting  the  victim. 

Ver.  b\  Bring   for  his  trespass. — The  He- 


brew being  exactly  the  same  as  in  the  following 
verse,  it  seems  better  to  give  the  same  transla- 
tion. The  A.V.  has  also  the  same  translation  in 
vers.  15  and  25  (vi.  0).  The  phrase  is  thus  parallel 
to,  and  in  apposition  with,  for  his  sin  which 
he  hath  sinned.  The  sacrifice  for  this  is 
expressly  called  a  sin  offering  in  this  verse  and 
vers.  7,  11,  12.  By  this  rendering  the  sin  and 
the  trespass  offerings  are  kept  distinct  as  they 
were  certainly  intended  to  be. 

A  female  from  the  flock. — The  victim  and 
the  ritual  are  precisely  the  same  as  in  the  sin 
offering  for  "  one  of  the  people  of  the  land," 
and  probably  vers.  1-4  are  intended  to  apply 
only  to  sins  committed  by  them. 

Vers.  7-10.  The  alternative  offering  of  the 
poor. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  voluntary  burnt  offering 
(i.  14-17),  so  in  this  of  the  required  sin  offering, 
the  poor  are  allowed  to  bring  pigeons  or  turtle- 
doves. 

One  for  a  sin  offering,  and  the  other  for 
a  burnt  offering. — The  two  together  evidently 
constitute  the  full  sin-offering;  but  they  are 
called  by  these  names  because  the  treatment  of 
the  two  birds  was  different,  and  each  after  the 
analogy  of  the  offering  from  which  it  is  named. 
The  bird  being  too  small  to  admit  of  its  parts 
being  disposed  of  as  a  sin  offering,  two  were 
required,  oneof  which  was  undoubtedly  (although 
this  is  not  expressed)  to  be  eaten  by  the  priest, 
as  is  stated  in  the  Mishna,  after  the  fashion  of 
the  flesh  of  the  Bin  offering  (vi.  26,  29;  vii.  7); 
the  other  was  to  be  burned  on  the  altar  like  the 
fat  of  that  sacrifice. 

Ver.  8.  Pinch  off  the  head. — See  under  i. 
15.  In  this  case  the  head  was  not  to  be  entirely 
separated,  but  pinched  off  enough  to  allow  the 
blood  to  flow  and  to  kill  the  bird. 

Ver.  9.  Sprinkle  of  the  blood. — This  was 
not  done  in  the  case  of  the  bird  for  the  burnt- 
offering.  It  could  easily  be  accomplished  by 
swinging  the  bleeding  bird  against  the  side  of 
the  altar. 

Pressed  out  at  the  bottom. — Where  the 
blood  of  the  other  sin  offerings  was  poured.  In 
the  burnt  offering  this  blood  (i.  15)  was  pressed 
out  against  the  side  of  the  altar. 

Ver.  10.  The  ritual  of  the  second  bird  was  to 
be  the  same  as  when  birds  were  offered  for  a 
burnt  offering  (i.  15-17).  The  two  birds  toge- 
ther constituted  a  complete  sin  offering.  From 
the  fact,  however,  that  two  were  required,  it  is 
plain  that  the  part  of  the  offering  not  required 
to  be  consumed  upon  the  altar  was  still  essential 
to  the  sacrifice. 

Vers.  11-13.  The  second  alternative  for  the 
extremely  poor. 

This  was  allowed,  on  account  of  the  absolute 
necessity  of  the  sin  offering,  in  order  to  put  it 
within  the  reach  of  all.  Lange  notes  that  the 
sins  specified  in  this  section  are,  for  the  most 
part,  sins  arising  from  the  lowness  and  rudeness 
of  the  inferior  people:  the  law  seeks  to  refine 
them.  Still  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  this 
alternative  offering  was  not  only  for  the  sins 
mentioned  v.  1-13,  but  for  all  sins  reached  by 
the  sin  offering.  The  fact  that  it  was  unbloody 
is  not  opposed  to  the  general  significance  of  the 
sheddiug  of  blood  in  connection  with  the  remia- 


48 


LEVITICUS. 


sion  of  sin  (neb.  ix.  22),  since  this  alternative 
was  altogether  of  an  exceptional  character  and 
allowed  only  in  case  of  necessity.  It  was  also 
supplemented  by  the  general  sin  offering  on  the 
great  day  of  atonement. 

The  tenth  part  of  an  Ephah. — The  Ephah 
according  to  Josephus  was  about  1  1-9  bushels  ; 
according  to  the  Rabbins,  rather  less  than  half 
that  amount.  The  tenth  of  an  Ephah  (called  an 
Omer,  Ex.  xvi.  36)  was  therefore,  according  to 
the  lower  and  more  probable  estimate,  very 
nearly  three  pints  and  a  half. 

He  shall  put  no  oil  upon  it. — The  sin- 
offering  of  flour  was  sharply  distinguished  from 
the  oblation  of  the  same  (ii.  5)  by  the  absence 
of  the  oil  and  frankincense,  just  as  the  other 
sin  offerings  were  marked  by  t lie  absence  of  the 
oblations.  In  both  cases,  the  difference  indi- 
cates that  the  offerer  stood  in  a  different  rela- 
tion toward  God,  not  that  of  one  in  communion 
with  Him,  but  of  one  seeking  atonement  for  the 
sin  which  separated  from  Him. 

Ver.  12.  On  the  "handful"  and  "memorial" 
see  on  ii.  2. 

Ver.  13.  In  one  of  these. — As  in  ver.  6, 
one  of  the  sins  specified,  vers.  1-4. 

As  an  oblation,  i.  e.  as  most  holy.  Comp. 
under  ii.  3.  The  character  of  the  sin  offering 
in  its  two  parts  is  still  preserved  in  this  its 
humblest  form. 

DOCTRINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  One  of  the  plainest  teachings  of  the  sin 
offering  is  that  everything  opposed  to  the  re- 
vealed will  of  God  is  sin,  whether  done  with  the 
purpose  of  transgressing  it  or  not.  Butler  has 
shown  that  this  is  in  perfect  accordance  with 
the  divine  law  in  nature.  St.  Paul  considered 
himself  the  chief  of  sinners,  because  he  "perse- 
cuted the  Church  of  God;"  yet  as  he  obtained 
mercy  because  he  did  it  ignorantly  in  unbelief 
(1  Tim.  i.  13-15),  so  the  sin-offering  was  pro- 
vided for  those  who  put  themselves  in  opposition 
to  the  divine  will  without  intending  to  do  so. 
It  was  on  this  principle  that  Jesus  could  pray 
for  those  who  nailed  Him  to  the  cross:  "  Father, 
forgive  them  for  they  know  not  what  they  do" 
(Luke  xxiii.  34).  The  great  mass  of  human  sin 
is  incurred  not  for  the  sake  of  sinning,  but  in 
heedlessness,  or  through  wrong  judgment,  or 
under  the  impulse  of  passion.  It  comes  under 
the  head  of  sins  of  inadvertence;  but,  as  of  old, 
needs  the  intervention  of  the  blood  of  the  atone- 
ment before  the  sinner  can  be  restored  to  com- 
munion with  God. 

II.  In  the  law  of  the  sin  offering  it  appears 
clearly  that  under  the  old  dispensation  as  well 
as  the  new  the  character  of  the  sin  was  deter- 
mined by  the  animus  of  the  sinner.  For  high- 
handed and  defiant  sin  no  sacrifice  was  allow- 
able ;  he  who  committed  this  put  himself  out  of 
the  pale  of  reconciliation.  But  he  who  commit- 
ted sins — which  might  in  themselves  be  far  worse 
— "  through  inadvertence  "  might  bring  his  of- 
fering and  have  "  an  atonement  made  for  him." 
An  excellent  historical  illustration  may  be  found 
in  comparing  the  stories  of  the  lives  of  Saul  and 
of  David;  and  the  distinction  between  the  two 
kinds  of  sin  is  expressed  in  the  psalm  of  David 
(xix.  12). 


III.  In  the  sin  offering  the  offerer  must  have 
already  been  in  a  state  of  mind  which  led  him  to 
desire  the  forgiveness  of  his  sin,  as  is  shown  by 
his  very  act  of  bringing  his  victim  to  the  priest ; 
he  was  also  ready  to  confess  his  sin  ;  yet  still 
the  offering  was  required.  By  this  was  taught 
in  outward  symbol  to  the  people  of  the  old  dis- 
pensation what  is  so  clearly  proclaimed  in  the 
Gospel,  that,  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin  there  must 
be  some  propitiation  outside  and  beyond  the  sin- 
ner himself;  mere  penitence,  though  an  essen- 
tial prerequisite,  cannot  alone  avail  to  restore 
the  disturbed  relations  to  God  of  one  who  has 
transgressed  His  law. 

IV.  The  iuherent  inefEcacy  of  these  sacrifices 
to  atone  for  sin  has  been  already  repeatedly  no- 
ticed ;  moreover,  this  inefEcacy  was  constantly 
brought  to  the  mind  of  the  worshipper  by  the 
repetition  of  the  sin  offerings,  as  is  especially 
noted  in  regard  to  the  sacrifices  of  the  day  of 
atonement  in  the  Ep.  to  the  Heb.  (ix.  6-8) ; 
still  the  sin  offering  is  insisted  upon  in  the  law 
with  an  emphasis  greater  than  belongs  to  any 
other  sacrifice.  Most  clearly,  therefore,  does  it 
point  to  the  "  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world." 

V.  In  the  extension  of  the  privileges  of  the 
sin-offering  in  Num.  xv.  29  to  "the  stranger" 
one  of  those  many  intimations  is  given,  scattered 
everywhere  throughout  the  Old  Test.,  which  the 
Israelites  were  so  slow  to  understand,  that  the 
blessings  of  forgiveness  and  of  approach  to  God 
were  intended  for  all  people,  and  that  the  nar- 
rowness of  restriction  to  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham after  the  flesh  was  only  a  temporary  provi- 
sion "because  of  transgressions"  until  the 
promised  Seed  should  come.  But  even  while  the 
restriction  continued  the  stranger  in  Israel  might 
present  his  sin  offering,  and  Israel's  priests  must 
make  atonement  for  him. 

VI.  The  sacramental  va'ue  of  the  sin  offering 
is  happily  expressed  by  Calvin  in  Lev.  iv.  22. 
"In  truth  they  hold  not  the  first  rudiments  of 
the  faith  who  do  not  recognize  that  the  legal  ce- 
remonies were  sacraments.  But  in  all  sacra- 
ments, at  least  those  which  are  regular  in  the 
church,  there  is  a  spiritual  promise  annexed.  It 
follows  therefore  that,  forgiveness  was  truly  pro- 
mised to  the  Fathers  who  reconciled  themselves 
to  God  by  the  victims  offered;  not  that  the 
slaughter  of  sheep  could  expiate  sins,  but  be- 
cause this  was  a  symbol,  certain  and  impossible 
to  deceive,  in  which  pious  souls  might  rest  so 
that  they  could  dare  to  appear  before  God  in 
calm  confidence.  In  fine,  as  sins  are  now  sacra- 
mentally  washed  away  by  baptism,  so  under  the 
law  also  sacrifices  were  expiations,  although  in 
a  different  fashion  ;  Bince  baptism  sets  before  us 
Christ  immediately,  who  was  only  obscurely  sha- 
dowed forth  under  the  law.  Improperly  indeed 
is  that  transferred  to  the  signs  which  belongs  to 
Christ  alone,  in  whom  is  set  forth  to  us  the  truth 
of  all  spiritual  good,  and  who  finally  did  away 
sin  by  His  single  and  perpetual  sacrifice.  But 
since  the  question  is  not  what  the  sacrifices 
availed  in  themselves,  let  it  suffice  that  they  testi- 
fied of  the  grace  of  God  of  which  they  were 
figures." 

VII.  The  ritual  of  the  sin  offering  was  the 
most  solema  of  all  the  sacrifices,  and   the  blood 


CHAP.  V.  14— VI.  7. 


49 


of  this  (except  in  case  of  the  alternative  doves) 
was  always  to  be  placed  at  least  on  the  horns  of 
the  altar,  while  that  of  the  greatest  burnt  or 
peace-otfering  was  only  sprinkled  on  its  sides; 
thus  the  forgiveness  of  sin  is  shown  to  be  the 
most  fundamental  and  necessary  part  of  the 
whole  approach  to  God. 

VIII.  No  sin  offerings,  although  some  of  them 
were  "burned  without  the  camp,"  were  ever 
wholly  burned  upon  the  altar,  and  the  common 
expression  in  regard  to  other  sacrifices,  "  the 
food  of  the  Lord "  is  never  applied  to  these. 
Frankincense  and  oil  were  not  allowed  with  the 
vegetable,  nor  an  oblation  with  the  animal  sin 
offering.  The  whole  ritual  was  stern  and  severe, 
until  by  the  sacrifice  itself  propitiation  had  been 
made.  By  this  symbolism  is  set  forth  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Infinite  in  holiness  towards  sin  ;  and 
thus  is  seen  what  must  have  been  the  conse- 
quences to  the  sinner,  except  for  the  Propitiation 
that  is  in  Christ  Jesus. 

HOMILETICAL   AND    PRACTICAL. 

The  "  exceediug  sinfulness  of  sin"  is  shown 
in  every  possible  symbolical  way  by  this  offering. 
It  has  in  it  nothing  of  the  oil  of  gladness,  or  the 
fragrance  of  frankincense ;  it  has  nothing  of 
festive  joy,  or  of  communion  between  the  wor- 
shipper and  God.  Yet  dark  as  the  shadow  of 
sin  is  hereby  shown  to  be,  it  appears  on  all  oc- 
casions when  man  comes  into  the  presence  of 
God.  The  sin  offering  was  presented  for  "the  peo- 
ple, on  all  the  great  festivals  and  days  of  solemn 
convocation,  on  Passover,  the  Feast  of  Weeks, 
and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  on  the  Day  of  Me- 
morial, on  the  first  day  of  the  seventh  month, 


and  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  "  (Kalisch)  and  on 
many  other  public  occasions.  Besides  all  these, 
it  was  offered  continually  by  individuals  as  the 
sins  of  their  own  lives  were  brought  to  their  con- 
sciousness. So  must  man's  approach  to  God  ever 
be  with  the  plea,  "Have  mercy  upon  me,  a  sin- 
ner." Coming  in  this  temper,  propitiation  is 
provided  for  all.  There  was  none  so  poor  but 
that  a  sin  offering  was  within  his  reach.  And 
so  the  word  of  the  great  Propitiation  is,  "Him 
that  cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out." 
"  He  is  able  to  save  unto  the  uttermost  them  that 
come  unto  God  by  Him." 

Yet  for  high-handed  and  defiant  sin,  for  sin  that 
sets  itself  in  opposition  to  the  Divine  way  of  salva- 
tion, there  is  no  other  way  of  forgiveness,  "  there 
remains  no  more  sacrifice."    Comp.  Heb.  x.  26. 

For  the  sin  of  the  high-priest  a  higher  victim 
was  commanded,  and  with  a  higher  ritual,  be- 
cause he  "  sinned  to  the  guilt  of  the  people." 
Only  for  the  sin  of  the  whole  people  collectively 
the  same  offering  was  required.  So  it  must  ever 
be  with  those  in  positions  of  influence  and  au- 
thority ;  when  they  sin,  they  drag  others  with 
them  into  guiltiness.  There  is  ever  a  federal, 
as  well  as  an  individual  relation  between  man 
and  God,  and  though  the  latter  may  determine 
his  final  condition,  yet  his  individual  relation 
itself  is  largely  affected  by  his  federal. 

Sins  of  omission  are  regarded  as  sins  equally 
with  those  of  commission. 

No  one  is  so  humble  that  the  means  of  propi- 
tiation is  not  provided  for  him.  Under  the  law. 
this  could  only  be  symbolized  by  alternative  of- 
ferings of  different  degrees,  showing  forth  the 
freeness  under  the  Gospel  of  the  offer  of  the 
waters  of  life  to  all  that  are  athirst. 


E.— TRESPASS  OFFERINGS. 
Chaps.  V.  14— VI.  7. 


Note.— In  the  division  of  chapters  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  this  section  is  rightly  all  included  in  Chap.  V. 

14,  15  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  If  a  soul  commit  a  trespass  [do  a 
wrong1],  and  sin  through  ignorance  [inadvertence2]  in  [taking  from3]  the  holy  things 
of  the  Lord;  then  he  shall  bring  for  his  trespass  unto  the  Lord  a  ram  without 
blemish  out  of  the  flocks,  with  [according  to']  thy  estimation  by  shekels  of  silver, 


TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  15.  I]!j3  7J.'0r\  The  word  being  different  from  the  Di^N  so  frequently  recurring  in  this  chapter  in  a  tech- 
nical sense,  it  is  better  to  change  the  translation.  Otherwise  commit  a  trespass  is  a  sufficiently  good  translation,  as  no  Eng- 
lish word  embodies  the  idea  of  secrecy  or  stealth  conveyed  by  the  original. 

8  Ver.  15.  njJU'3  =»  through  inadvertence.    See  Note  1  on  iv.  2. 
it:    ■ 
Ver.  15.  «■"    'C?"1p3  a  constructio  priegnans  ->  taking,  or  diminishing  from  the  holy  things. 

4  Ter- ls-  'P'll'S-  The  preposition  often  has  the  sense  given  in  the  A.  V.  with  but  according  to  (as  in  the  next  word 
but  one)  Beems  here  the  better  rendering.  The  evident  sense  is  that  the  ram  was  to  be  of  a  certain  value,  and  this  was  to 
be  determined  by  an  estimation.  The  restitution  for  the  harm  done,  with  its  added  fifth,  is  prescribed  in  the  following  ver., 
and  does  not  come  into  view  here.  The  Sam.  text  preserves  the  exact  form  of  the  Hebrew,  but  all  the  ancient  versions, 
while  changing  the  form  of  expression,  give  the  sense  according  to  ;  they  also  neglect  to  translate  the  It  =  thy. 


50  LEVITICUS. 


16  after  the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary,  for  a  trespass  offering  ;  and  he  shall  make  amends 
for  the  harm  that  he  hath  done  [sin  that  he  hath  committed5]  in  the  holy  thing, 
and  shall  add  the  fifth  part  thereto,  and  give  it  unto  the  priest :  and  the  priest  shall 
make  an  atonement  for  him  with  the  ram  of  the  trespass  offering,  and  it  shall  be 
forgiven  him. 

17  And  if  a  soul  sin,  and  commit  any  of  these  things  which  are  forbidden  to  be  done 
by  the  commandments  of  the  Loed  ;  though  he  wist  it  not,  yet  is  he  guilty,  and 

18  shall  bear  his  iniquity.  And  he  shall  briug  a  ram  without  blemish  out  of  the 
flock,  with  [according  to4]  thy  estimation,  fjr  a  trespass  offering,  unto  the  priest : 
and  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  concerning  his  ignorance  [inadver- 

19  tence"]  wherein  he  erred  and  wist  it  not,  aud  it  shall  be  forgiven  him.  It  is  a  tres- 
pass offering :  he  hath  certainly  trespassed  against  the  Loed. 

Chap.  VI.  1,  2.  And  the  Loed  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  If  a  soul  sin,  and  commit 
a  trespass  [do  a  wrong']  against  the  Loed,  aud  lie  unto  his  neighbour,  in  that  [and 
deny  to  his  neighbor  thatGJ  which  was  delivered  him  to  keep,  or  in  fellowship  [or  a 
pledge']  or  in  [omit  in]  a  thing  taken  away  by  violence,  or  hath  deceived  [op- 

3  pressed8]  his  neighbour ;  or  have  found  that  which  was  lost,  and  lieth  concerning 
it  [denieth  it6]  and  sweareth  falsely :  in  any  of  all  these  that  a  man  doeth,  sinning 

4  therein  :  then  it  shall  be,  because  he  hath  sinned,  aud  is  guilty,  that  he  shall  re- 
store that  which  he  took  violently  away,  or  the  thing  which  he  hath  deceitfully 
[oppressively8]  gotten,  or  that  which  was  delivered  him  to  keep,  or  the  lost  thing 

5  which  he  found,  or  all  that  about  which  he  hath  sworn  falsely ;  he  shall  even  re- 
store it  in  the  principal,  and  shall  add  the  fifth  part  more  thereto,  and  give  it  unto 

6  him  to  whom  it  appertained,  in  the  day  of  his  trespass  offering.9  And  he  shall 
bring  his  trespass  offering  unto  the  Loed,  a  ram  without  blemish  out  of  the  flock, 

7  with  [according  to4]  thy  estimation,  for  a  trespass  offering,  unto  the  priest :  and  the 
priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  before  the  Loed  :  and  it  shall  be  forgiven 
him  for  anything  of  all  that  he  hath  done  in  trespassing  therein. 

6  Ver.  16.  This  is  the  only  place  in  Lev.  in  which  NUn  «  rendered  by  any  other  word  than  sin  in  the  A.  V.  This 
should  be  conformed  to  the  osage. 

6  Chap.  VI.  Ver.  2.  U/n3  construed  with  a  double  3  of  the  person  and  of  the  thing,  =  to  deny  a  thing  to  a  person. 
The  word  means  to  lie  (xix.  11,  etc.),  but  the  other  rendering  expresses  more  exactly  the  sense  here,  and  is  the  more  usual. 

7  Ver.  2.  T  rWr^TC"lX  =  a  thing  given  in  pledge,  apawn,  different  from  the  trust  just  before.  The  construction  is 
with  the  same  verb,  and  is  sufficiently  expressed  without  the  special  translation  of  3,  so  that  the  in  of  the  A.  V.  may  be 
omitted  throughout, 

»  Ver.  2.  p'C!V  lit.  to  press,  to  squeeze,  hence  to  oppress.  A  new  verb  being  here  introduced  the  construction  with  the 
series  of  3  ends.    The  derived  noun  pVp,  ver.  4,  bears  the  same  sense  —  that  which  has  been  oppressively  obtained. 

s  Ver.  5.  The  Heb.  word  meaning  either  trespass  or  trespass  offering,  the  marg.  of  the  A.  V.  is  hardly  accurate  in  writing 
u  Heb.  in  the  day  of  his  trespass." 


EXEGETICAL  AND   CEITICAL. 

The  general  distinction  of  the   trespass  from 
the  sin  offering  has  already  been  pointed  out:   in 


any  .alternative  offerings  allowed  in  case  of  po- 
verty. The  reason  for  the  last  provision  results 
necessarily  from  the  nature  of  the  offering. 
Elsewhere  we  find  the  same  trespass  offering 
prescribed  for  unchastity  with  a  slave  (xix.  20- 


lUe   Sill    Olieilllg   11113    illieuujt     Uccu   ]iuiu'tu   vm  .      ...        f..~uv--~ j      .._-__ _      v_ 

the  trespass  offering  the  idea  of  the  harm  done  \  22),  and  in  later  times  offered  by  those  who,  on 
was  more  prominent,  in  the  sin  offering  that  of  ' 
the  sin  committed.  Accordingly  the  trespass  of- 
fering was  usually  accompanied  by  "amends  for 
the  harm"— a  fifth  (a  double  tithe)  being  added 
as  penalty.  In  case  the  person  against  whom 
1  he  wrong  was  done  was  already  dead  without  a 
kinsman  to  receive  the  compensation,  the  amends 
and  penalty  were  to  be  paid  to  the  priest  (Num. 
v.  8).  The  ritual  differed  in  several  respects 
from  that  of  the  sin  offering:  the  blood  was 
treated  as  in  the  burnt  and  peace  offerings;  the 
only  victim  hero  allowed  was  a  ram;  there  was 
no  gradation  either  in  the  victim  or  the  ritual 
according  to  the  rank  of  the  offender;  nor  were 


the  return  from  the  captivity,  had  taken  strange 
wives  (Ezra  x.  19);  the  same  also  (not  a  "he- 
lamb,"  as  in  the  A.  V.)  is  commanded  with  a 
somewhatdifferent  ritual  on  occasion  ofdeclaring 
the  cleansing  of  a  leper  (xiv.  12,  21),  and  also 
with  a  ram  of  a  year  old  for  the  victim  in  case 
of  unintentional  defilement  by  a  dead  body  during 
a  Nazarite  vow  (Num.  vi.  9-12). 

Three  cases  are  specified  which  demand  a 
trespass  offering — the  first  two  having  reference 
more  directly  to  wrong  done  towards  God  (v. 
15-19),  and  the  third,  including  several  varieties 
of  offence,  having  reference  to  wrong  done  to  men 
(vi.  2-7). 


CHAP.  V.  14— VI.  7. 


51 


Ver.  14.  And  the  LORD  spake.— This  for- 
mula marks  a  fresh  communication  and  distinctly 
separates  the  trespass  offering  from  the  sin  offer- 
ing which  has  occupied  the  whole  of  the  previous 
communication  from  iv.  1.  The  whole  law  of  the 
trespass  offering  is  not,  however,  contained  in 
this  communication,  but  only  that  part  of  it  re- 
lating to  wrongs  done  toward  God.  Wrongs 
done  toward  man  are  the  subject  of  a  separate 
communication  (vi.  1-7). 

Vers.  16-17.  The  first  case  of  the  trespass 
offering. 

Ver.  13.  Through  inadvertence,  as  in  iv. 
2,  13,  22. 

In  taking  from  the  holy  things. — See 
Textual  note  3.  The  holy  things  were  the  first- 
fruits,  tithes,  or  gifts  of  any  kind  connected  with 
the  service  of  the  sanctuary  or  the  support  of  its 
priests,  by  the  withholding  of  which  the  Lord  is 
said  to  suffer  loss.  The  restitution  and  penalty 
are  mentioned  xxii.  14  without  mention  of  this 
offering,  which  is  presupposed. 

A  ram.  —  The  invariable  trespass  offering 
(except  in  the  special  cases  xiv.  12  ;  Num.  vi.  12) 
which  does  not  at  all  appear  in  the  list  of  victims 
for  the  sin  offering  in  iv.  1 — v.  13. 

According  to  thy  estimation. — See  Text- 
ual note  4. — The  pronoun  thy  must  be  considered 
as  used  impersonally;  or  if  it  be  taken  person- 
ally, then  it  is  addressed  to  Moses,  and  of  course 
to  any  one  to  whom  this  duty  should  afterwards 
belong  in  his  place. 

Shekels. — The  Vulg.  and  many  commentators 
understand  the  plural  to  stand  for  two,  as  the 
A.  V.  has  explained  the  plural  in  Ezek.  xlvii.  13  ; 
others,  as  Aben-Ezra,  Abarbanel,  etc.,  understand 
it  less  definitely  as  meaning  at  least  two  shekels. 
The  notion  of  Oehler  (p.  478)  and  Keil  (in  loc.) 
that  the  value  of  the  ram  was  purposely  left  in- 
definite, that  there  might  be  room  to  vary  it  ac- 
cording to  the  gravity  of  the  trespass,  although 
advocated  by  Michaelis  (Art.  244),  is  clearly 
wrong.  It  is  opposed  to  the  fundamental  idea 
of  all  sacrifice,  which  excludes  such  correlation; 
and  is  entirely  unnecessary,  since  the  compensa- 
tion and  forfeit  (ver.  16)  were  separately  re- 
quired. Moreover,  the  variation  in  the  value  of 
the  ram  would  be  very  small  in  comparison  with 
the  variation  in  trespasses.  The  text  was  in- 
tended to  fix  the  lowest  limit  of  the  value  of  a 
ram  that  could  be  allowed,  and  the  estimation 
was  for  the  purpose  of  determining  whether  he 
came  up  to  the  standard.  "The  plural  is  plainly 
to  be  understood  as  meaning  two  shekels,  or  at 
least  two  shekels."   Knobel. 

Shekel  of  the  Sanctuary. — See  Ex.  xxx. 
13  ;  xxxviii.  24,  etc. 

Ver.  16.  And  he  shall  make  amends. — He 
shall  give  the  first-fruits  or  tithes,  or  whatever 
he  had  withheld  or  taken  from  sacred  dues,  or  its 
value.  And  shall  add  the  fifth  part  thereto 
as  a  penally  or  forfeit. — Theodoret  here  refers  to 
the  example  of  Zaccheus.  The  justice  of  such  ad- 
ditional payment  is  everywhere  recognized  in  the 
Hebrew  and  all  other  laws.  It  is  in  this,  and  not 
in  the  ram,  that,  the  penalty  is  proportioned  to  the 
offence.  This  having  been  done,  and  reparation 
made,  then,  with  the  ram,  the  priest  shall 
make  an  atonement. 

On  the  ritual  of  this  sacrifice  see  vii.  1-6. 


Vers.  17-19.  The  second  case  of  the  trespass 
offering.      . 

This  second  case  probably  differed  from  the 
first  as  sins  of  commission  differ  from  those  of 
omission.  The  formula  by  which  the  trespass  is 
expressed  is  substantially  the  same  as  in  iv.  22 
and  27  in  regard  to  the  sin  to  be  expiated  by  the 
sin  offering.  From  its  connection,  and  from  ita 
being  expiated  by  the  trespass  offering,  it  is  sup- 
posed to  include  all  those  transgressions  against 
the  theocratic  law  which  could  be  compensated 
by  money  or  other  payment;  yet  in  this  case 
alone  no  mention  is  made  of  compensation,  partly 
because  it  was  evident  from  the  foregoing  that 
it  was  required  when  it  could  be  given,  and 
partly  because  it  included  also  cases  in  which 
pecuniary  compensation  could  not  be  given,  but 
punishment  must  be  inflicted  in  some  other  way. 
(See  xix.  20.)  Lauge,  however,  urges  that  this 
omission  is  a  serious  difficulty  against  the  view 
of  the  trespass  offering  which  has  here  been 
given.  He  considers  that  the  trespass  offering 
relates  to  participation  in  guilt  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  an  original  offence,  and  thinks  this  is  in- 
dicated by  the  description  of  these  sins  as  "sins 
of  ignorance."  He  says  "these  sins  of  ignorance 
belong  specifically  to  the  category  of  participation 
in  guilt."  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that 
all  sins  for  which  any  offering  was  allowed  were 
"sins  of  ignorance,"  or  rather  of  inadvertence. 

VI.  1-7.  The  third  case  of  the  trespass 
offering. 

From  the  formula  of  ver.  1  this  appears  as  a 
separate  divine  communication,  on  account  of 
the  different  character  of  the  sins  enumerated. 
All  sin  is  indeed  against  God,  yet  those  which 
follow  belong  to  that  class  of  offences  against  Him 
which  also  work  harm  to  men. 

The  first  three  verses  contain  an  enumeration 
of  specific  wrongs ;  vers.  4  and  5  provide  for 
amends  for  the  harm  done  with  the  added  pe- 
nalty ;  and  vers.  6  and  7  for  atonement  by  means 
of  the  trespass  offering.  This  communication 
bears  the  same  relation  to  the  foregoing  which 
v.  1-13  bears  to  chap.  iv. 

Ver.  2.  If  a  man  deny  to  his  neighbor 
that  which  -was  delivered  him. — "111P3 
is  a  deposit,  a  thing  entrusted  to  be  kept.  The 
sin  in  this  case  would  consist  either  in  denying 
the  receiving  it  at  all,  or  denying  that  it  was  re- 
ceived in  trust,  or  refusing  to  restore  it. 

A  pledge. — This  differs  from  the  former  in 
not  being  simply  a  trust,  but  a  security,  a  pawn. 
It  is  not  separately  mentioned  in  ver.  4. 

Ver.  3.  Sweareth  falsely. — When  he  denies 
that  he  has  found  a  lost  thing,  and  is  put  upon 

his  oath,  he  swears  to  his  He,  1pt5~7j£.  This 
false  swearing  refers  also  to  all  the  wrongs  men- 
tioned before,  and  the  guilt  of  the  false  oath, 
added  to  the  wrong  done,  brings  the  offence  into 
the  category  of  sins  against  the  Lord. 

Ver.  5.  In  the  day  of  his  trespass  offering. 
— The  amends  for  the  wrong  done  was  to  be 
made  to  the  person  wronged  at  the  same  time 
that  the  offender  sought  the  divine  forgiveness. 
The  penalty  for  the  wrong  and  the  ritual  of  the 
offering  are  the  same  as  in  chap.  v. 

In  Ex.  xxii.  1-9  a  series  of  wrongs  is  enume- 
rated much  like  those  here  mentioned  with  the 


52 


LEVITICUS. 


general  law  that  the  restitution  should  be  dou- 
ble (vers.  4,  9),  while  in  particular  cases  it  rose 
to  four  and  five-fold.  The  distinction  between 
the  penalty  as  given  there  and  here  appears  to 
lie  in  the  fact  that  there  the  offender  was  only 
brought  to  any  restitution  by  a  conviction  "be- 
fore the  judges"  (ver.  9);  while  here,  although 
it  is  not  distinctly  so  declared  yet,  every  thing 
implies  that  the  acknowledgment  of  the  wrong 
is  voluntary.  There  is  no  mention  of  conviction, 
and  the  whole  connection  is  with  sins  of  inad- 
vertence or  impulse  which  were  afterwards  ac- 
knowledged, and  for  which  forgiveness  was 
sought  by  the  offender. 

DOCTRINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  From  the  law  of  the  trespass  offering  it  is 
clear  that  guilt  was  not  removed  by  the  mere  act 
of  compensation  (with  penalty  added)  for  the 
harm  done;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  could  an 
atonement  be  offered  for  that  guilt  until  such 
compensation  had  been  made.  Here  are  brought 
out  the  two  principles  which  everywhere,  under 
the  old  and  the  new  dispensation  alike,  are  con- 
cerned in  the  forgiveness  of  transgression. 
There  must  be  both  the  desire,  as  far  as  possible, 
to  make  amends  for  the  harm  done;  and  there 
must  be  also  the  sacrifice  divinely  appointed  for 
"the  covering"  of  the  sin.  Neither  of  these  can 
avail  alone,  because  both  are  essential  to  that 
state  of  holiness,  that  conquest  over  the  evil,  by 
which  alone  man  can  be  at  one  with  God.  The 
sacrifice  of  Christ  is  all-sufficient  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin;  but  the  sinner  can  only  avail  him- 
self of  its  benefits  when,  Christ-like,  he  himself 
seeks  to  conquer  the  evil. 

II.  Wrong  done  to  man  is  itself  sin  against 
God.  It  is  impossible  to  separate  the  command 
to  love  God  from  that  of  loving  our  neighbor  also. 
1  Jno.  iii.  20,  21. 

III.  In  those  sins  against  others  for  which 
atonement  was  provided  in  the  trespass  offering, 
there  was  the  additional  sin  of  a  false  oath.  This 
was  certainly  a  moral  offence — a  sin  in  the  full 
sense  of  the  word.  In  view  of  this,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  look  upon  the  offences  for  which  sacri- 
fices were  appointed  as  mere  ceremonial  or  theo- 
cratic offences.  They  everywhere  appear  as 
true  Bins,  moral  transgressions,  and  this  is  most 
clearly  shown  by  including  the  false  oath  among 
them. 


HOMILETICAL   AND   PRACTICAL. 

There  is  no  true  repentance  for  wrong  done  to 
man  which  is  not  accompanied  by  restitution — 
and  none  for  having  taken  from  the  things  of  the 
Lord,  or  for  having  failed  to  give  all  that  should 
have  been  given  to  Him,  except  in  restoring  it  in 
overflowing  measure;  yet  while  this  may  make 
amends  for  the  harm  don?,  forgiveness  of  the  sin 
must  still  be  sought  through  propitiation. 

In  the  trespass  offering  the  ritual  of  the  blood 
was  like  that  of  the  burnt  or  the  peace  offering — 
inferior  to  that  of  the  sin  offering.  This  shows 
that  while  wrong  must  of  necessity  involve  sin, 
yet  it  does  not,  in  itself  considered,  stand  on  the 
same  footing  as  sin;  the  moral  element  in  trans- 
gression is  always  the  more  important.  One 
cannot  indeed  really  offend  against  man  without 
also  offending  against  God ;  yet  the  offence  which 
has  God  directly  for  its  objective  point  must  ne- 
cessarily be  more  serious,  since  it  involves  a 
deeper  tort  than  that  which  is  directed  only 
against  man. 

The  sin  offering  was  lessened  by  successive 
stages  for  the  poor,  and  the  very  poor,  that  it 
might  be  brought  within  the  reach  of  all;  for  all 
must  have  propitiation  for  sin;  but  the  trespass 
offering  is  unvaried,  the  same  for  all;  because 
if  one  cannot  make  amends  for  the  wrong  he  has 
done,  it  must  be  let  alone, — an  inferior  gift  can- 
not set  things  right. 

Wrong,  like  sin,  may  be  committed  through 
inadvertence.  Still  it  must  be  atoned  for.  Good 
intentions  will  not  repair  the  wrong. 

For  sin  done  "with  a  high  hand,"  presump- 
tuously, no  sacrifice  was  provided,  because  the 
offender  deliberately  set  himself  in  opposition  to 
God  ;  but  for  offences  against  man,  such  as  those 
here  enumerated,  some  of  which  must  have  been 
done  deliberately,  a  sacrifice  is  allowed,  because 
even  such  intentional  wrongs  do  not  constitute 
the  same  attitude  of  opposition  to  God.  They 
may  be  done,  through  passion  or  covetousness, 
without  reflection  upon  their  moral  bearings. 
Therefore,  on  repentance,  restitution,  and  propi- 
tiation, they  may  be  forgiven. 

Origen  applies  the  law  of  trespass  in  abstract- 
ing from  sacred  things  to  the  faithfulness  re- 
quired of  the  Christian  minister  in  regard  to 
gifts  for  holy  use3  committed  to  his  trust;  and 
then  further  to  the  hearing  of  God's  word  as  a 
sacred  gift,  for  the  use  of  which  men  are  re- 
sponsible, and  for  the  misuse  of  which  they  be- 
come guilty. 


CHAP.  VI.  8— VII.  38.  53 


SECOND    SECTION. 

Special  Instructions  chiefly  for  the  Priests. 

Chap.  VI.  8— VII.  38. 

"Standing  Sacrificial  Rites  and  Duties— especially  of  the  Priests." — LANGE. 

A.— FOR  BURNT  OFFERINGS. 

Chap.  VI.  8-13. 

8,  9  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Command1  Aaron  and  his  sons,  say- 
ing, This  is  the  law  of  the  burnt  offering:  It2  is  the  burnt  offering,  because  of  the 
burning  upon  the  altar  [This,  the  burnt  offering,  shall  be  upon  the  hearth  upon  the 
altar3]  all  night  unto  the  morning,  and  the  fire  of  the  altar  shall  be  burning  in  it. 

10  And  the  priest  shall  put  on  his*  linen  garment,  and  his  linen  breeches  shall  he  put5 
upon  his  flesh,  and  take  up  the  ashes  which  the  fire  hath  consumed  with  the  burnt 
offering  [ashes  to  which  the  fire  hath  consumed  the  burnt-offering6]  on  the  altar, 

11  and  he  shall  put  them  beside  the  altar.  And  he  shall  put  off  his  garments,  and 
put  on  other  garments,  and  carry  forth  the  ashes  without  the  camp  unto  a  clean 

12  place.'  And  the  fire  upon  the  altar  shall  be  burning  in  [on]  it;  it  shall  not  be 
put  out :  and  the  priest  shall  burn  wood  on  it  every  morning,  and  lay  the  burnt 
offering  in  order  upon  it :  and  he  shall  burn  thereon  the  fat  of  the  peace  offerings. 

13  The  fire  shall  ever  be  burning  upon  the  altar ;  it  shall  never  go  out. 

B.— FOR  OBLATIONS  (MEAT  OFFERINGS).  VI.  14-23. 

14  And  this  is  the  law  of  the  meat  offering  [oblation8]  ;  the  sons  of  Aaron  shall 

15  offer9  it  before  the  Lord,  before  the  altar.  And  he  shall  take  of  it  his  handful,  of 
the  flour  of  the  meat  offering  [oblation8],  and  of  the  oil  thereof,  and  all  the  frank- 
incense which  is  upon  the  meat  offering  [oblation8],  and  shall  burn  it  upon  the 

16  altar  for  a  sweet  savour,  even  the  memorial  of  it,  unto  the  Lord.  And  the  remain- 
der thereof  shall  Aaron  and  his  sons  eat :  with  [om.  with]  unleavened  bread  [om. 
bread]  shall  it  be  eaten  in  the  [a]  holy  place ;  in  the  court  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 

17  [om.  the]  congregation  they  shall  eat  it.  It2  shall  not  be  baken  with  leaven.  I 
have  given  it  unto  them  for  their  portion  of  my  offerings  made  by  fire ;  it  is  most 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  9.  IV-    The  Sam.  has  ^lV.  a  form  which  occurs  in  MS3.  with  the  pointing  ^V. 

2  Ver«.  9.  17, 18,  22.  X1D.  The  S.im.  and  many  MSS.  have  the  later  f.  rm  XTt  indicated  by  the  Hasoretic  pnnotna- 
tion.  This  frequent  variation  will  not  hereafter  bo  noticed.  The  conjectural  emendation  of  Uoubigant,  'in  iu  the  impe- 
rative, although  expressing  ihe  sense,  is  unnecessary. 

3  Ver.  9.  Tha  suggested  translation  is  that  given  by  most  critics ;  of  its  general  correctness  there  can  be  no  doubt ;  but 
the  sense  of  mplO  (which  occurs  only  here)  may  be  either  that  of  hearth,  or  of  burning.    The  masculine  form,  "lplO 

(which  is  fouu  i  only  Ps.  cii.  4  (3),  and  Isa.  xxxiii.  14),  is  translated  in  both  ways  in  the  A.  V.,  but  should  have  only  the 
latter  sense.  The  weight  of  authority  as  well  as  the  context  make  hearth  the  preterable  translation  here.  Knobel  would 
make  Xin  the  verb  tti  be  in  the  imperative;  but  this  is  not  sufficiently  supported. 

*  Ver.  10.  nQ.    For  the  suffix  on  a  noun  in  the  coustr.  Knobel  refers  to  xxvi.  42;  Ex.  xxvi.  25;  Jer.  ix.  2  (viii.  23); 

2  Sam.  xxii.  33,  however,  reads  '"I'D. 

5  Ver.  10.  The  Sam.  for  1^3*7^  has  :|'7y  as  in  xvi.  4,  which  scarcely  affects  the  sense. 

6  Ver.  10.  The  propriety  of  tins  correction  is  obvious.  Ep.  Horsley's  emendation :  take  up  the  ashes  of  the.  fire  which  hath 
consumed — does  violence  to  the  Heb. 

'  Ver.  11.  The  Vulg.  has  this  curious  addition  :  usipie  adfaviUam  cansumi  faciei. 

8  Ver.  14,  etc.  ntlJD—  oblation.    See  ch.  ii.  1,  Text,  and  Gram.  Note  (2).    The  Sam.  has  here  "the  law  of  the  oblation 
t  :  ■ 
of  the  drink  offerings,"  whence  the  Vulg. :  lex  sacrificii  et  tibamentorum. 

•  Ver.  14.  3"lpn,  Iufin.  Ahs.  as  in  ii.  6;  Ex.  xiii.  3. 


54  LEVITICUS. 


18  holy,  as  is  the  sin  offering,  and  as  the  trespass  offering.  All  the  males  among  the 
children  of  Aaron  shall  eat  of  it.  It  shall  be  a  statute  forever  in  your  generations 
concerning  the  offerings  of  the  Lord  made  by  fire  :  every  one  that  [whatsoever10] 
toueheth  them  shall  be  holy. 

19,  20  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  This  is  the  offering  of  Aaron  and 
of  his  sons,  which  they  shall  offer  unto  the  Lord  in  the  day  when  he11  is  anointed ; 
the  tenth  part  of  an  ephan  of  fine  flour  for12  a  meat  offering  [an  oblation6]  perpetual, 

21  half  of  it  in  the  morning,  and  half  thereof  at  night.13  In  a  pan  it  shall  be  made 
■with  oil ;  and  when  it  is  baken  [fried14],  thou  shalt  bring  it  in :  and  the  baken15 
pieces15  of  the  meat-offering  [oblation8]  shalt  thou  offer  for  a  sweet  savour  unto  the 

22  Lord.     And  the  priest  of  his  sons  that  is  anointed  in  his  stead  shall  offer  it :  it  is 

23  a  statute  forever  unto  the  Lord  ;  it  shall  be  wholly  burnt.  For  every  meat-offer- 
ing [oblation6]  for  the  priest  shall  be  wholly  burnt :  it  shall  not  be  eaten. 

C— FOR  SIN  OFFERINGS.     VI.  24-30. 

24,  25  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  Aaron  and  to  his  sons, 
saying,  This  is  the  law  of  the  sin  offering  :  In  the  place  where  the  burnt  offering  is 

26  killed  shall  the  sin  offering  be  killed  belbre  the  Lord  :  it  is  most  holy.  The  priest 
that  offereth  it  for  sin  shall  eat  it :  in  the  [a]  holy  place  shall  it  be  eaten,  in  the 

27  courtof  the  tabernacle  of  the  [om.  the]  congregation.  Whatsoever  shall  touch  the  flesh 
thereof  shall  be  holy:  and  when  there  is  sprinkled  of  the  blood  thereof  upon  any 
garment,  thou16  shalt  wash  that  w:hereon  it  was  sprinkled  in  the  [a]  holy  place. 

28  But  the  earthen  vessel  wherein  it  is  sodden  shall  be  broken :  and  if  it  be  sodden  in 

29  a  brazen  pot,  it  shall  be  both  scoured,  and  rinsed  in  water.     All  the  males  among 
SO  the  priests  shall  eat  thereof:  it  is  most  holy.     And  [But]  no  sin  offering,  whereof 

any  of  the  blood  is  brought  into  the  tabernacle  of  the  [om.  the]  congregation  to 
reconcile  [make  atonement"]  withal  in  the  holy  place,  shall  be  eaten :  it  shall  be 
burnt  in  the  fire. 

D.— FOR  TRESPASS  OFFERINGS.     Chap.  VII.  1-6. 

Chap.  VII.  1     Likewise  [And]  this  is  the  law  of18  the  trespass-offering :  it  is  most 

2  holy.     In  the  place  where  they  kill  the  burnt  offering  shall  they  kill  the  trespass 
offering :  and  the  blood  thereof  shall  he19  sprinkle  round  about  upon  the  altar. 

3  And  he  shall  ofier  of  it  all  the  fat  thereof;  the  rump  [the  fat  tail20],  and  the  fat  that 

4  covereth  the  inwards,  and  the  two  kidneys,  and  the  fat  that  is  on  them,  which  is 
by  the  flanks,  and  the  caul  that  is  above  the  liver,  with  [on21]  the  kidneys,  it  shall 

5  he  take  away:  and  the  priest  shall  burn  them  upon  the  altar  for  an  offering  made 

6  by  fire  unto  the  Lord;  it  is  a  trespass  offering.     Every  male  among  the  priests 
shall  eat  thereof:  it  shall  be  eaten  in  the  [a]  holy  place:  it  is  most  holy. 

1(>  Vcr.  18.   "lu'X    12    might  be  understood  either  as  every  one  that,  as  in  the  A.  V.,  or  as   every  thing  thai;  but  as  the 

latter  is  the  necessary  translation  of  the  exactly  parallel  clanse  in  ver.  27  (as  in  the  A.  V.),  it  is  better  to  keep  it  here  also. 

11  Ver.  20.  The  Syr.  here  has  the  plural. 

12  Ver.  20.    The  prep.  S,  not  in  the  Heb.,  is  supplied  by  the  Sam.  and  many  MSS. 

13  Ver.  20.  The  paraphrase  of  the  Sam.  D'S^'H   V^=bettveen  the  evenings,  expresses  the  connection  of  this  oblation 

with  the  evening  sacrifice. 

H  Ver.  21.  r03"0,  a  word  of  very  doubtful  meauing,  but  should  certainly  have  the  same  translation  as  in  vii.  12, 

where  see  note. 

is  Ver.  21.  Tan,  a  word  iir.  Aey.  to  which  different  significations  are  attached  according  to  its  supposed  derivation. 

Fiirst,  deriving  it  from  flip,  gives  the  sense  of  the  A.  V.    Gesenius  also,  deriving  from  HDX,  gives  the  sense  of  cooled. 

Others  derive  it  from  an  Arabic  root,  and  give  the  meaning  broken.    So  Targ.  Onk.  (which  points  'J'fiNpi)  and  the  Sam. 

i°  Vor.  27.  D33H   iT/l'-    The  sudden  change  of  person,  and  the  feminine  suffix  in  reference  to  a  masculine  noun, 
•■-  :     t    •/ t  i 

axe  both  avoided  by  the  Sam.  reading  033^  V  7^- 

1?  Ver.  30.  IS^S.  There  may  be  but  little  difference  in  the  sense  of  the  two  renderings ;  but  it  is  better  to  retain 
the  same  form  ahraya    Other  instances  of  variation  in  the  A.  V.  in  Lev.  are  viii.  15  and  xvi.  20  only. 

18  VII.  Ver.  1.  The  I.XX.  here  lias  6  1'dpios  toO  /tpioC,  the  ram  being  the  only  victim  admissible  for  the  trespass  offering. 

™  Ver.  2.  Tli.'  Sun.  here  us™  the  plural.  II  cannot  mean  that  the  offerer  Bprinliled  the  blood,  but  rather  assimilates 
this  v.-rli  to  those  pnriL;  before  on  tli«  supposition  (as  in  i.  6,  12,  etc.)  that  the  priests  also  killed  the  Victim. 

»  Ver.  :i.    rrSsn.    See  Textual  Note  «  on  iii.  9. 


"  Ver.  4.  h]?— on.    See  Textual  Note  '  on  iii.  i. 


CHAP.  VI.  8— VII.  38.  55 


E.— FOR  THE  PRIESTS'  PORTION  OF  THE  ABOVE  OFFERINGS.     VII.  7-10. 

7  As  the  sin-offering  is,  so  is  the  trespass  offering :  there  is  one  law  for  them :  the 

8  priest  that  maketh  atonement  therewith  shall  have  it.     And  the  priest  that  offer- 
eth  any  man's  burnt  offering,  even  the  priest  shall  have  to  himself  the  skin  of  the 

9  burnt-offering  which  he  hath  offered.     And  all  the  ineat-offering  [oblation8]  that  is 
baken  in  the  oven,  and  all  that  is  dressed  iu  the  frying-pan  [pot2-],  and  in  the  pan, 

10  shall  be  the  priest's  that  offereth  it.  And  [But]  every  meat  offering  [oblation8] 
mingled  with  oil,  and  dry,  shall  all  the  sons  of  Aaron  have,  one  as  much  as  another. 

F.— FOR  PEACE  OFFERINGS  IN  THEIR  VARIETY.     VII.  11-21. 

11  And  this  is  the  law  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings,  which  he23  shall   offer  unto 

12  the  Lord.  If  he  offer  it  for  a  thanksgiving,  then  he  shall  offer  with  the  sacrifice 
of  thanksgiving  unleavened  cakes  mingled  with  oil,  and  unleavened  wafers  anointed 

13  with  oil,  and  cakes  mingled  with  oil,  of  Cue  flour,  fried.24  Besides  the  cakes,  he 
shall  offer  for  his  offering  leavened  bread  with  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving  of  his 

14  peace  offerings.  And  of  it  he  shall  offer  one  out  of  the  whole  oblation  [out  of  each 
offering25]  for  an  heave  offering  unto  the  Lord,  and  it  shall  be  the  priest's  that 

15  sprinkleth  the  blood  of  the  peace  offerings.  And  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  his 
peace  offerings  for  thanksgiving  shall  be  eaten  the  same  day  that  it  is  offered ;  he 

16  shall  not  leave  any  of  it  until  the  morning.  But  if  the  sacrifice  of  his  offering  be 
a  vow,  or  a  voluntary  offering,  it  shall  be  eaten  the  same  day  that  he  offereth  his 

17  sacrifice:  and  on  the  morrow  also  the  remainder  of  it  shall  be  eaten:  but  the  re- 
mainder of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  on  the  third  day  shall  be  burnt  with  fire. 

18  And  if  any  of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  his  peace  offerings  be  eaten  at  all  on  the 
third  day,  it  shall  not  be  accepted,  neither  shall  it  be  imputed  unto  him  that  offer- 
eth it :  it  shall  be  an  abomination,26  and  the  soul  that  eateth  of  it  shall  bear  his 

19  iniquity.  And  the  flesh  that  toucheth  any  unclean  thing  shall  not  be  eaten ;  it 
shall  be  burnt  with  fire :  and  as  for  the  flesh,  all  that  be  clean  shall  eat  thereof. 

20  But  the  soul  that  eateth  of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings  that  pertain 
unto  the  Lord,  having  his  uncleanness  upon  him,  even  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off 

21  from  his  people.  Moreover  the  soul  that  shall  touch  any  unclean  thing,  as  the 
uncleanness  of  man,  or  any  uaclean  beast,  or  any  abominable  unclean  thinr/,21  and 
eat  of  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings,  which  pertain  unto  the  Lord,  even 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people. 

G.— FOR  THE  FAT  AND  THE  BLOOD.  VII.  22-27. 

22,  23     And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 

24  saying,  Ye  shall  eat  no  manner  of  fat,  of  ox,  or  of  sheep,  or  of  goat.  And  the  fat 
of  the  beast  [carcase28]  that  dieth  of  itself,  and  the  fat  of  that  which  is  torn  with 

25  beasts,  may  be  used  in  any  other  use :  but  ye  shall  in  no  wise  eat  of  it.  For  who- 
soever eateth  the  fat  of  the  beast,  of  which  men  offer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto 

22  Ver.  9.  See  Textual  Note  '  on  it.  7. 

23  Ver.  11.  The  Sum.,  LXX.  acid  Vulg.  with  two  MSS.  have  the  plural. 

24  Ver.  12.  r03"1?3.    There  is  bo  much  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  meaning:  that  it  seems  unsafe  to  attempt  any 

change  in  the  A.  V.  Fiirst  says  :  "  ttomelltinfl  dipped  in,  mingled  (by  moistening) ;"  Lange  denies  that  it  conveys  the  sense 
Of  cooked;  Keil  translates  "and  rotated  finejtour  (see  Ti.  14)  nu  i"i(h  oil,  i.  e.,  cakes  made  of  fine  flour  roasted 

with  oil,  and  thoroughly  kneaded  with  oil."    Others  give  varying  interpretations. 

26  Ver.  14.  \2~)p  is  to  be  uniformly  translated  offering.  See  ii.  1.  The  word  whole  in  the  A.  V.  does  not  express  the 
idea  that  one  must  be  taken  out  of  each  of  the  offerings  mentioned  in  the  two  preceding  verses. 

26  Ver.  18.  ;U3  occurs  only  here  and  in  xix.  7;  Isa.  lxv.  4;  Ezek.  iv.  14,  and  is  always  applied  to  the  sacrificial  flesh. 
It  is  from  the  root  7J3,  and  signifies  something  unclean  and  fetid,  LXX.  niaa/j-a. 

B  Ver.  21.  For  V  ptjf—nn  abominable  animal  (xi.  10, 12,  13,  20,  23,  41),  the  Sam.,  six  MSS.  of  Kennicott  and  of  de  Rossi, 

Targ.  of  Onkelos  ($rp)  and  the  Syr.  read  yiW^reptUes,  worms  (v.  xi.  20,  20,  41).    This  would  make  a  more  systematic 

enumeration  of  the  sources  of  uncleanness,  and  is  adopted  by  many. 

18  Ver.  24.  nSDJ.    The  margin  of  the  A.  V.  is  better  than  the  text.     The  D31t3  of  the  next  clause—torn  sc.  of 
t  •■ :  t  ■■ : 

beasts,  is  of  course  a  wholly  different  word. 


56 


LEVITICUS. 


26  the  Lord,  even  the  soul  that  eateth  U  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people.  Moreover 
ye  shall  eat  no  manner  of  blood,  whether  it  be  of  fowl  or  of  beast,  in  any  of  your 

27  dwellings.  Whatsoever  soul  it  be  that  eateth  any  manner  of  blood,  even  that  soul 
shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people. 

H.— FOR  THE  PRIESTS'  PORTION  OF  THE  PEACE  OFFERINGS.    VII.  28-36. 

28,  29  ^  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
saying,  He  that  offereth  the  sacrifice  of  his  peace  offerings  unto  the  Lord  shall 
bring  his  oblation  [offering29]  unto  the  Lord  of  the  sacrifice  of  his  peace  offerings. 

30  His  own  hands  shall  bring  the  offerings  of  the  Lord  made  by  fire,  the  fat  with  the 
breast,  it  shall  he  bring,  that  the  breast  may  be  waved  for  a  wave  offering  before 

31  the  Lord.     And  the  priest  shall  burn  the  fat  upon  the  altar:  but  the  breast  shall 

32  be  Aaron's  and  his  sons'.    And  the  right  shoulder  [leg30]  shall  ye  give  unto  the  priest 

33  for  an  heave  offering  of  the  sacrifices  of  your  peace  offerings.  He  among  the  sons  of 
Aaron,  that  offereth  the  blood  of  the  peace  offerings,  and  the  fat,  shall  have  the  right 

34  shoulder  [leg30]  for  his  part.  For  the  wave-breast  and  the  heave  shoulder  [leg30]  have 
I  taken  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  off  the  sacrifices  of  their  peace  offerings,  and 
have  given  them  unto  Aaron  the  priest  and  unto  his  sons  by  a  statute  for  ever  from 

35  among  the  children  of  Israel.  This  is  the  portion  of  the  anointing  of  Aaron,  and 
of  the  anointing  of  his  sons  [This  is  the  portion31  of  Aaron  and  the  portion31  of  his 
sons],  out  of  the  offerings  of  the  Lord  made  by  fire,  in  the  day  when  he32  presented 

36  them  to  minister  unto  the  Lord  in  the  priest's  office ;  which  the  Lord  commanded 
to  be  given  them  of  the  children  of  Israel,  in  the  day  that  be  anointed  them,  by  a 
statute  forever  throughout  their  generations. 

CONCLUSION  OF  THIS  SECTION.     VII.  37-38. 

37  This  is  the  law  of  the  burnt  offering,  of  the  meat  offering  [oblation],  and  of  the 
sin  offering,  and  of  the  trespass  offering,  and  of  the  consecrations,  and  of  the  sacri- 

38  fice  of  the  peace  offerings ;  which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses  in  Mount  Sinai,  in 
the  day  that  he  commanded  the  children  of  Israel  to  offer  their  oblations  [offerings29] 
unto  the  Lord,  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai. 


29  Ver.  29.  The  uniform  translation  of  |21p  must  be  retained  here  also,  although  giving  an  appearance  of  tautology 

I  t  :  I  t  i 

which  is  not  in  the  original,  his  peace  offerings  being  expressed  simply  by  VO  llj-    The  translation  of  the  A.  V.  may  have 

tt  : 
been  influenced  by  the  rendering  in  the  Vu'g. :  qfierat  simul  et  sacrificium,  id  est,  libamenta  ejus;  but  for  this  there  is  no 
warrant,  nor  is  it  sustained  by  aoy  other  of  the  ancient  versions. 

30  Ver.  32.    pY£l   is  uniformly  rendered  shoulder  in  the  A.  V.  wherever  it  is  applied  to  sacrificial  animals;  in  all  other 

places  it  is  used  of  men  (Pent,  xxviii.  35;  Prov.  xxvi.  7  ;  Cant.  v.  15;  Isa.  xlvii.  2  ;  also  Dan.  ii.  33,  Chald.;  Ps.  cxlvii.  10), 
and  is  translated  leg,  or  hip,  or  thigh.  The  A.  V.  has  here  followed  the  equally  uuiform  practice  of  the  LXX.  and  tbe  Vnlg. 
It  would  Beem  that  the  word  should  have  the  same  sense  iu  both  cases;  there  is  no  place  in  which  leg  is  inapplicable,  but 
there  are  several  in  which  shoulder  is  inadmissible.  The  testimony  of  Josephus  (III.  9,  g  2,  Kvriixn)  is  explicit  in  favor  of 
leg  ;  so  also  Jewish  tradition  and  the  lexicons.  Whether  the  fore  or  the  hind  leg  is  meant  is  a  matter  of  difference  of  opi- 
nion ;  but  the  Heb.  has  a  distinct  word  y)~)]=arm  for  the  shoulder  or  fore-leg  (Num.  vi.  19  ;  Deut.  xviii.  3),  and  that,  too, 
ol  the  sacrificial  animals. 

31  A'er.  35.   rifli^-     The  word  undoubtedly  means  anointing ;  but  there  is  also  good  authority  for  the  meaning  portion 

which  Rnsennniller  considers  undoubtedly  the  risht  translation  here,  and  which  is  so  necessary  to  the  sense  that  it  is  sup- 
plied iu  the  A.  V.,  which  has  followed  the  transition  of  the  LXX.  and  Vulg. 

32  Ver.  35.  The  Vulg.  has  die  qua  oblulil  eos  Moyses  ul  saccrdotio  fungereutur. 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

The  remainder  of  ch.  viM  with  the  whole  of 
ch.  vii.,  form  a  distinct  section  occupied  mainly 
with  the  duties  and  privileges  of  the  priests  in 
connection  with  their  sacrificial  service.  Al- 
though there  is  unavoidably  a  little  repetition  in 
thus  speaking  again  of  the  same  sacrifices  from 
a  different  point  of  view  and  for  a  different  ob- 
ject;  yet  the  gain  in  clearness  and  distinctness 
in  thus  separating  the  priestly  duties  from  those 
of  the  laymen  is  obvious,  both  for  the  priests  and 
for  the  people.     The  section  consists  of  five  di- 


vine communications  addressed  through  Moses 
to  Aaron  and  his  sons,  as  the  former  commu- 
nication had  been  to  ths  children  of  Israel. 

It  has  already  been  noticed  that  in  the  Hebrew 
Bibles  the  chapter  rightly  begins  with  the  begin- 
ning of  this  section.  Here  also  begins  a  new 
Parashah,  or  Proper  Lesson  of  the  law,  which 
extends  to  viii.  36.  The  corresponding  Lesson 
from  the  prophets  begins  with  Jer.  vii.  21,  in 
which  "  God  declares  the  vanity  of  sacrifice 
without  obedience." 

A.  Vers.  8-13.  Instructions  for  the  priests  in 
regard  to  the  burnt -offerings.  This  has  refe- 
rence to  the  daily  burnt-offerings  of  a  lamb  at 


CHAP.  VI.  8— Til.  38. 


evening  and  at  morning.  There  was  no  occa- 
sion for  directions  in  regard  to  the  voluntary 
burnt  offerings  as  they  involved  no  other  priestly 
duties  than  those  already  expressed  in  chap.  i. ; 
in  that  chapter  nothing  has  been  said  of  the  re- 
quired burnt  sacrifice,  provided  at  the  public 
cost,  which  is  here  treated  of. 

Ver.  9.  All  night  unto  the  morning. — The 
slow  fire  of  the  evening  sacrifice  was  to  be  so 
arranged  as  to  last  until  the  morning;  that  of 
the  morning  sacrifice  was  ordinarily  added  to 
by  other  offerings,  or  if  not,  could  easily  be  made 
to  last  through  the  much  shorter  interval  until 
the  evening.  The  evening  sacrifice  is  natu- 
rally mentioned  first  because,  in  the  Hebrew  di- 
vision of  time,  this  was  the  beginning  of  the 
day.  It  was  offered  "between  the  evenings," 
i.  e.,  between  three  o'clock  and  the  going  down 
of  the  sun.  The  general  direction  for  the  daily 
burnt  offerings  has  already  been  given  in  Ex. 
xxix.  38,  and  is  again  repeated  in  Num.  xxviii. 
3.  As  this  offering  was  theoretically  the  com- 
prehensive type  from  which  all  other  offerings 
were  specialized,  so  practically  it  was  always 
burning  upon  the  altar,  and  all  other  sacrifices 
were  offered  "upon  it." 

Ver.  10.  His  linen  garment. —This  was 
"  (he  long  tight-robe  of  fine  white  linen,  or  bya- 
bus,  without  folds,  covering  the  whole  body,  and 
reaching  down  to  the  feet,  with  sleeves,  woven 
as  one  entire  piece,  and  with  forms  of  squares 
intermixed,  and  hence  called  tesalated"  (Ka- 
lisch).  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  point  out  tint 
linen,  from  its  cleanliness,  and  from  the  readi- 
ness with  which  it  could  be  washed,  was  selected 
as  the  priestly  dress  not  only  among  the  Israel- 
ites, but  among  many  other  nations  also,  espe- 
cially the  Egyptians,  whose  priests  are  therefore 
often  described  by  Roman  poets  as  linigeri.  There 
were  four  parts  of  the  priestly  linen  dress,  of 
which  two  only  are  mentioned  here,  because  all 
had  been  prescribed  in  Ex.  xxviii.  40-43,  and  the 
girdle  and  the  turban  were  of  course  to  be  un- 
derstood. The  priests  might  not  minister  at  the 
altar  in  any  other  garments,  nor  might  they  wear 
these  outside  the  sacred  precincts. 

And  take  up  the  ashes. — As  the  priest  must 
be  in  his  oflicial  dress  at  the  altar,  it  was  of  ne- 
cessity that  he  should  temporarily  deposit  the 
ashes  near  by,  until  he  had  finished  the  ordering 
of  the  altar. 

Ver.  11.  And  he  shall  put  off  his  gar- 
ments.— -The  sacred  dress  was  now  to  be  laid 
aside  as  the  priest  must  pass  out  of  the  taber- 
nacle and  out  of  the  camp.  It  has  been  ques- 
tioned whether  the  carrying  forth  of  the  ashes 
must  necessarily  be  performed  by  the  officiating 
priest  himself.  According  to  Jewish  tradition  it 
might  be  done  by  any  of  the  priestly  family  who 
were  excluded  from  officiating  at  the  altar  by 
reason  of  some  bodily  defect.  The  same  tradi- 
tion also  tells  us  that  it  was  only  required  each  day 
to  carry  forth  a  small  quantity  of  the  ashes — a 
shovel-full — allowing  the  rest  to  remain  until  the 
hollow  of  the  altar  below  the  grating  was  filled 
up,  when  all  must  be  emptied  and  carried  away. 

Unto  a  clean  place. — There  was  a  fitness 

too  evident  to  require  further  reason,  that  the 

remains  of  what  had  been   used  for  the  holiest 

purposes  should  be  deposited   in  a  clean  place. 

19 


— Without  the  camp,  is  a  phrase  belonging 
to  the  life  of  the  wilderness,  but  easily  modified 
to  the  requirements  of  the  settled  life  in  Pales- 
tine. 

Ver.  12.  Shall  burn  wood  on  it.— The  fire 
was  to  be  maintained  always  whether  the  pre- 
vious sacrifice  remained  burning  sufficiently  or 
not,  so  that  fresh  supplies  of  wood  were  to  be 
added.  Great  care  was  taken  in  the  selection 
and  preparation  of  this  wood,  and  any  sticks 
worm-eaten  were  rejected.  And  lay  the  burnt- 
offering. — All  was  to  be  arranged  and  the  fire 
brightly  burning  before  the  time  of  offering  the 
morning  sacrifice.  Wheu  this  was  laid  upon  the 
wood,  the  sacrificial  day  was  begun,  and  the  fat 
of  the  peace-offerings  and  any  other  sacrifices 
that  might  he  presented  were  placed  upon  it. 

Ver.  13.  The  fire  shall  be  ever  burning 
upon  the  altar. — The  fire  upon  the  altar  was 
not.  as  is  sometimes  supposed,  originally  kindled 
by  the  "fire  from  before  the  Lord"  (ix.  -1), 
since  it  had  been  burning  several  days  before 
that  fire  came  forth ;  yet  that  fire  so  marked  the 
Divine  approbation  of  the  priestly  order  as  they 
entered  upon  their  office,  that  a  continual  fire  in 
which  that  was  always  in  a  sense  perpetuated, 
was  a  constant  symbol  and  pledge  of  the  Divine 
acceptance  of  the  sacrifices  offered  upon  it.  So 
also,  in  later  times,  with  the  fire  from  heaven  at 
the  dedication  of  the  temple  (2  Chr.  vii.  1).  But 
besides  this,  "  It  is  evident  that  the  fire  burning 
continually,  which  was  kept  up  by  the  daily 
burnt  offering  (Ex.  xxix.  38),  had  a  symbolical 
meaning.  As  the  daily  burnt  sacrifice  betokened 
the  daily  renewed  gift  of  God,  in  like  manner 
did  this  continually  burning  fire  denote  the  un- 
ceasing, uninterrupted  character  of  the  same. 
Similar  customs  with  the  heathen  had  a  different 
signification.  Among  the  Persians  (and  among 
the  Parsees  in  India  at  this  day),  fire  was  and  is 
the  visible  representative  of  the  Godhead;  the 
continual  burning  of  it,  the  emblem  of  eternity. 
The  perpetual  fire  of  Vesta  (the  "  oldest  god- 
dess ")  among  the  Greeks  and  Romaus,  was  the 
emblem  of  the  inmost,  purest  warmth  of  life, 
which  unites  family  and  people — the  hearth,  as 
it  were,  the  heart  of  a  house  or  of  a  State.  In 
both  is  shown  the  essential  difference  which  ex- 
isted  between  these  and  the  Divine  covenant  re- 
ligion." Von  Gerlach.  Perpetual  sacrificial  fires 
were  common  among  many  ancient  nations. 

It  is  obvious  that  during  the  marches  of  the 
life  in  the  wilderness  some  special  means  must 
have  been  used  for  the  preservation  of  this  fire. 
On  such  occasions  the  altar  was  to  be  carefully 
cleaned  and  covered  with  a  purple  cloth  and  then 
with  "badgers'  skins."  (Num.  iv.  13,  14).  Pro- 
bably the  fire  was  carried  on  the  march  in  a  ves- 
sel prepared  for  the  purpose. 

B.  Instructions  for  the  priests  concerning  ob- 
lations. This  division  consists  of  two  portions, 
the  former  of  which  (vers.  14-18)  is  apart  of  the 
same  divine  communication  as  the  preceding  di- 
vision, and  relates  to  the  priestly  duties  con- 
nected with  the  oblations  of  the  people,  whether 
voluntary  or  required  ;  while  the  latter,  (vers. 
19-23),  forms  a  separate  divine  communication, 
and  relates  to  the  special  oblation  of  the  high- 
priests  themselves  in  connection  with  their  con- 
secration. 


53 


LEVITICUS. 


The  law  of  the  oblation  is  a  repetition  in  part 
of  that  in  ch.  ii.,  because  it  was  there  applied 
only  to  voluntary  oblations,  while  here  it  in- 
cludes all ;  but  there  are  also  (in  vers.  10-18) 
additional  particulars  not  given  before. 

Ver.  14.  The  sons  of  Aaron  shall  offer  it. 
— This  presentation  of  the  whole  oblation  by  the 
priests,  which  seems  to  have  been  an  essential 
part  of  the  sacrifice,  has  been  already  mentioned 
in  ch.  ii.  8,  while  ver.  15  merely  repeats  and  ap- 
plies to  all  oblations  the  directions  in  ii.  2  for 
the  private  and  voluntary  oblation. 

Ver.  16.  The  following  directions,  which  con- 
cern the  duties  of  the  priests,  have  not  before 
been  given.  By  their  consuming  the  remainder 
of  the  oblation  it  became,  like  the  sin-offering,  a 
sacrifice  wholly  devoted  to  the  Lord.  See  note 
on  ii.  3.  Only  those  of  Aaron's  sons  might  eat 
of  it  who  were  ceremonially  clean.  This  is  ex- 
pressed emphatically  in  regard  to  the  peace 
offerings  in  vii.  21.  The  addition  of  the  words 
with  and  bread  in  the  A.  V.  singularly  obscures 
the  sense ;  it  should  be  read  unleavened  shall 
it  be  eaten  in  a  holy  place. 

Ver.  17.  I  have  given  it. — Not  merely  by 
appointment,  as  God  is  the  giver  of  all  that  man 
enjoys  ;  but  of  my  offerings,  as  of  that  which 
peculiarly  belonged  to  God. — Most  holy.  See 
on  ii.  3. 

Ver.  18.  All  the  males. — Because  they,  and 
they  only,  were  in  the  priestly  succession.  It 
includes  both  those  who  were  actual  priests,  and 
their  sons  yet  too  young  to  officiate,  but  who  at 
the  proper  age  would  become  priests;  and  still 
further,  those  who  were  of  priestly  family,  but 
were  hindered  by  bodily  defect  or  infirmity  from 
ministering  at  the  altar.  'Whatsoever  touch- 
eth  them  shall  be  holy. — Two  senses  are  pos- 
sible :  (a)  nothing  shall  be  allowed  to  touch 
them  which  is  not  holy;  (b)  whatever  does 
touch  them  Bhall  thereby  become  holy.  The 
latter  must  be  considered  the  true  sense  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  analogy  of  vers.  27,  28,  and 
Ex.  xxix.  37,  (comp.  Hag.  ii.  12,  13).  and  with 
this  sense  the  command,  understood  of  inanimate 
objects,  as  Calmet  suggests,  presents  no  diffi- 
culty. The  LXX.  and  Vulg.,  however,  (not  the 
Semitic  versions  which  of  course  present  the 
same  ambiguity  as  the  Heb.),  like  the  A.  V.,  un- 
derstood it  of  persons,  and  so  understood,  it  has 
occasioned  much  difficulty  to  commentators. 
Lange,  following  Theodoret,  says  "  Whoever 
should  touch  this  most  holy  flesh  offering  (and 
more  especially  the  meat  offering)  should  be 
holy,  should  henceforward  be  considered  to  be- 
long to  the  Sanctuary."  He  then  gives  various 
differing  interpretations.  It  is  better  to  avoid 
the  difficulty  altogether  as  above. 

Ver.  20.  In  the  day  when  he  is  anointed. 
— The  new  communication  in  relation  to  the  high- 
priesl's  oblation  begins  with  ver.  19.  Most  com- 
mentators understand  the  time  when  this  obla- 
tion was  to  be  offered  as  at  the  end  of  the  seven 
days  of  consecration,  as  the  high-priest  was  only 
then  qualified  to  officiate.  The  word  day  would 
then  be  understood  as  in  Gen.  ii.  4.  Lange,  how- 
ever, says  "on  each  of  the  seven  days,  not  only 
on  the  eighth  day,  when  the  consecration  was 
finished  (ch.  viii.  34)  this  was  to  be  offered." 
An  oblation  perpetual. — A  few  interpreters 


^as  Kalish  and  Knobel)  understand  this  of  an 
observance  to  be  always  repeated  at  the  conse- 
cration of  each  successive  high-priest,  and  then 
only.  More  generally  it  is  interpreted  as  refer- 
ring to  a  daily  oblatiou  always  to  be  offered 
morning  and  evening  by  the  high-priest.  Such 
is  the  uniform  Jewish  interpretation.  It  is  pro- 
bably this  offering  that  is  referred  to  in  Ecclus. 
xlv.  14;  see  also  Philo,  de  Vict.  Jos.  Ant.  iii.  ch. 
10  (S  7.  Several  eminent  Jewish  authorities,  as 
Maimonides  and  Abarbauel,  have  supposed  that 
the  same  offering  was  also  required  of  every 
priest  at  his  entrance  upon  his  office  ;  but  this 
opinion,  as  it  has  not  been  widely  adopted,  so  it 
seems  to  have  no  foundation  in  the  law.  The 
high-priest  alone  is  distinctly  designated  in 
ver.  22. 

The  tenth  part  of  an  Ephah. — The  same 
amount  which  was  required  for  the  sin  offering 
of  the  poorest  of  the  people  in  v.  11.  This 
amount  was  to  be  presented  by  the  high-priest 
as  a  single  offering  which  was  to  be  afterwards 
divided  and  offered  half  m  the  morning  and  half 
at  night. 

Ver.  23.  It  shall  not  be  eaten. — In  other  ob- 
lations  all  was  given  to  God,  but  in  part  through 
the  priest ;  in  the  priestly  oblation,  he  could  not 
offer  it  to  God  through  himself,  and  therefore  it 
must  of  necessity  be  wholly  burnt. 

C.  Instructions  for  the  priests  concerning  sin 
offerings. 

Lange  adheres  to  the  view  he  has  given  in  ch. 
iv.,  and  makes  this  division  include  both  the  sin 
and  the  trespass  offerings.  For  his  reasons  see 
ch.  iv.  He,  however,  calls  the  next  division 
"  The  ritual  of  the  trespass  offering." 

We  have  here  the  third  of  the  five  divine  com- 
munications contained  in  this  section.  The  first 
includes  the  burnt  offerings  and  oblations,  while 
the  second,  as  an  appendix  to  this,  is  occupied 
with  the  special  oblations  of  the  high-priest ;  the 
present  communication  extends  to  vii.  21,  and 
embraces  the  directions  to  the  priests  concerning 
the  various  other  kinds  of  sacrifice.  In  the  or- 
der in  which  they  are  mentioned  in  chs.  iii. — v. 
the  peace  offerings  came  before  the  sin  and  tres- 
pass offerings,  while  here  they  are  placed  after 
them;  the  reason  for  this  change  is  well  ex- 
plained by  Murphy,  as  resulting  from  the  differ- 
ent principle  of  arrangement  appropriate  in  the 
two  cases.  In  the  instructions  for  the  people 
the  order  of  the  sacrifices  is  that  of  their  com- 
parative frequency,  the  burnt  offering  and  obla- 
tion being  constant  (although  not  so  as  voluntary 
offerings),  the  peace  offerings  habitual,  the  sin 
and  trespass  offerings,  from  their  nature,  occa- 
sional ;  here  the  principle  of  arrangement  is  in 
the  treatment  of  the  flesh, — the  burnt  offering, 
(with  which  the  oblation  is  associated)  was 
wholly  consumed  on  the  altar,  the  sin  and  tres- 
pass offerings  were  partly  eaten  by  the  priests, 
the  peace-offerings  both  by  the  priests  and  the 
people. 

Ver.  25.  In  the  place  where  the  burnt 
offering. — It  is  evident  from  ver.  30  that  this 
whole  direction  refers  to  the  sin  offerings  of  the 
people,  not  of  the  high-priest  or  of  the  whole 
oongregation.  These  were  to  be  killed  in  the 
usual  place  of  killing  the  smaller  sacrificial  ani- 
mals, on  the  north  side  of  the  altar.     See  note 


CHAP.  VI.  8— VII.  38. 


59 


on  i.  11.  The  sin  offering  for  the  high-priest 
and  for  the  congregation,  consisting  of  a  bullock, 
was  to  be  killed  (i.  3)  where  the  bullock  for 
burnt  offering  was  killed  "  before  the  door  of 
the  tabernacle."   See  note  on  i.  3. 

It  is  most  holy. — See  on  ii.  3. 

Ver.  25.  The  priest  that  offereth  it. — For 
the  exceptions  see  ver.  30.  The  flesh  of  the  or- 
dinary sin-offering  belonged,  not  to  the  priests 
as  a  body,  but  to  the  particular  priest  that  of- 
fered it.  It  was,  however,  much  more  than  he 
could  consume  alone,  and  therefore  in  ver.  29 
all  males  of  the  priestly  family  were  allowed  to 
eat  of  it,  doubtless  on  the  invitation  of  the  offi- 
ciating priest,  or  by  some  established  arrange- 
ment. 

Ver.  27.  Shall  be  holy. — As  in  ver.  18.  In 
regard  to  the  peculiarly  sacred  character  of  the 
sin  offering  Lange  says,  "  the  complete  surren- 
der to  Jehovah  is  expressed  in  three  ways:  ]) 
Forbidding  the  flesh  to  the  unclean  ;"  [But  this, 
although  to  be  supposed,  is  not  mentioned  here, 
whereas  it  is  very  emphatically  commanded  in 
connection  with  the  peace  offerings,  vii.  20,  21]. 
"  2)  Washing  the  garments  sprinkled  with  blood 
in  a  holy  place,  or  in  the  court.  Here  the  re- 
gard is  not  for  the  cleansing  of  the  garment,  but 
for  the  blood, — it  must  not  be  carried  on  the 
garment  out  of  the  sanctuary;  3)  If  the  vessel  in 
which  the  flesh  was  cooked  was  earthen,  it  had 
to  be  broken,  if  of  copper,  it  had  to  be  scoured 
and  rinsed,  so  that  nothing  of  the  substance  of 
the  flesh  should  remain  sticking  to  it."  On  the 
reason  for  the  peculiar  sacredness  with  which 
the  flesh  of  the  sin  offering  was  regarded  vari- 
ous opinions  have  been  held.  It  seems  unneces- 
sary, however,  to  look  for  this  reason  in  the  sup- 
position that  the  victim  was  regarded  as  bearing 
either  the  sins  of  the  offerer,  or  the  punishment 
due  to  those  sins.  The  simple  fact  that  God  had 
appointed  the  sin-offering  as  a  means  whereby 
sinfulness  might  "be  covered,"  and  sinful  man 
might  approach  Him  in  His  perfect  holiness,  is 
enough  to  invest  that  means,  like  the  altar  upon 
which  it  was  offered,  with  a  sacredness  which 
needs  no  analysis  for  its  explanation.  The  very 
important  passage,  ch.  x.  17,  usually  referred  to 
in  this  connection,  will  be  treated  of  in  its  place. 

Thou  shalt  wash. — The  second  person  is 
used  because  the  command  is  addressed  to  the 
priest.  The  garment  referred  to  is  probably 
that  of  the  offerer;  it  might  easily  happen  that 
this  would  sometimes  be  stained  by  the  spurting 
of  the  blood  of  the  victim,  but  he  was  not  to  wash 
it  himself ;  no  particle  of  the  blood  might  be  car- 
ried out  of  the  sanctuary,  and  none  might  med- 
dle with  it  but  the  divinely  appointed  priest. 

Ver.  28.  But  the  earthen  vessel. — Un- 
glazed  earthenware  would  absorb  the  juices  of 
the  flesh  so  that  they  could  not  be  removed ; 
hence  such  vessels  must  be  broken  that  the  flesh 
of  the  sin  offering  might  not  be  profaned.  The 
brazen  pot  probably  stands  for  any  metallic 
vessel,  and  these  being  less  porous,  might  be 
perfectly  freed  from  the  flesh  by  scouring  and 
rinsing.  For  the  same  reason  the  earthen  vessel 
into  which  any  of  the  small  unclean  animals 
when  dead  had  fallen  (xi.  33,  35),  must  be 
broken  ;  from  its  absorptive  qualities  it  took  the 
character  of  that  which  had  been  within  it,  and 


was  unfit  for  other  use.  No  direction  is  given 
for  the  disposition  of  the  broken  fragments.  It 
is  more  likely  that  they  were  disposed  of  with 
the  ashes  from  the  altar,  than  that,  as  Jewish 
tradition  affirms,  the  earth  opened  to  swallow 
them  up.  No  mention  is  made  of  any  other  me- 
thod of  cooking  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  than  by 
boiling.  From  1  Sam.  ii.  13-15,  and  from  the 
allusion  in  Zeeh.  xiv.  21,  it  would  appear  that 
the  same  method  was  observed  also  in  later  ages. 

Ver.  29.  All  the  males. — Comp.  Note  on 
ver.  18. 

Ver.  30.  But  no  sin  offering  whereof  any 
of  the  blood  is  brought  in  the  tabernacle. 
—Comp.  iv.  5-7,  11.  12.  16-18,  21  ;  xvi.  27.  This 
shows  that  from  the  foregoing  directions  the 
sin  offerings  for  the  high-priest  and  for  the  whole 
congregation  are  to  be  excepted  ;  for  these  no 
directions  are  here  given,  since  the  priest,  had 
nothing  more  to  do  with  them  than  has  already 
been  provided  for  in  ch.  iv. 

D.  Instructions  for  the  priests  concerning 
trespass  offerings,   vii.  1-6. 

In  the  LXX.  this  and  the  next  division  (vii.  7- 
10)  form  a  part  of  ch.  vi.  This  is  certainly  the 
better  division  ;  but  the  A.  V.  has  here  followed 
the  Hebrew,  as  in  the  division  between  chaps. 
v,  and  vi.,  it  followed  the  LXX. — in  both  cases 
for  the  worse. 

In  the  former  directions  for  the  trespass  offer- 
ing (v.  14 — vi.  7)  designed  for  the  people,  no- 
thing is  said  of  what  parts  are  to  be  burned  on 
the  altar,  nor  of  the  disposal  of  the  remainder. 
The  directions  on  these  points  are  now  given  to 
the  priests.  The  ritual  is  precisely  the  same  as 
for  the  ordinary  sin-offering  except  in  the  treat- 
ment of  the  blood.  This  was  to  be  treated  as 
that  of  the  burnt  and  of  the  peace  offerings,  viz. 
to  be  sprinkled  on  the  sides  of  the  altar,  instead 
of  being  placed  on  its  horns  as  in  the  sin 
offering.  See  iii.  2,  8,  13  ;  iv.  6,  30,  34. 
The  Codex  Middoth  (iii.  1)  is  quoted  for  the 
tradition  of  the  Jews  that  there  was  a  scarlet 
ill  read  or  line  around  the  altar  just  at  the  middle 
of  its  height;  and  that  the  blood  of  the  burnt 
ottering  was  sprinkled  above,  and  that  of  the 
trespass  offering  below  this  line.  No  mention 
is  made  of  laying  on  of  hands  in  the  trespass 
offering,  either  here  or  in  v.  14 — vi.  7  (where  it 
would  more  naturally  occur).  Knobelargues  from 
this  omission  that  it  was  omitted  in  this  offering ; 
it  is  more  likely  that  there  is  no  mention  of  it 
because  it  was  a  universal  law  in  the  case  of  all 
vietims  and  therefore  did  not  require  to  be  spe- 
cified. 

Ver.  3.  The  fat  tail  is  specified  because  the 
victim  in  the  trespass  offering  must  always  be  a 
ram.     For  other  points  see  ch.  iii. 

E.  Instructions  concerning  the  priests'  por- 
tion of  the  above,  vii.  7-10. 

Before  proceeding  to  those  sacrifices,  of  which 
a  part  was  returned  to  be  consumed  by  the  of- 
ferer, summary  directions  are  now  given  in  re- 
gard to  all  the  preceding  offerings,  which  were 
wholly  devoted  to  the  Lord,  whether  by  being 
wholly  consumed  upon  the  altar,  or  partly  eaten 
by  the  priests. 

Ver.  7.  One  law  for  them — i.e.,  in  respect 
to  the  matter  here  treated  of,  the  disposal  of  their 
flesh.     The  priest  that  maketh  atonement. 


60 


LEVITICUS. 


— The  flesh  of  these  victims  did  not  become  the 
common  property  of  the  priestly  body,  but  was 
the  peculiar  perquisite  of  the  officiating  priest. 
He  might,  of  course,  ask  others,  and  especially 
those  who  were  hindered  by  bodily  infirmity 
from  officiating,  to  share  it  with  him. 

Ver.  8.  Shall  have  to  himself  the  skin. — 
Since  this  was  unsuitable  for  burning  upon  the 
altar,  and  yet  the  victim  was  wholly  devoted. 
No  directions  are  any  where  given  in  regard  to 
the  skins  of  the  other  offerings,  except  those 
which  were  to  be  burned  with  ihe  flesh  without 
the  camp.  The  Mishna  (Sebach  12,  3)  says  that 
the  skins  of  all  victims  designated  as  "most  holy" 
were  given  to  the  priests,  while  those  of  other 
victims  (i.  e.,  the  peace  offerings  in  their  variety) 
belonged  to  the  offerer.  This  distinction,  being 
in  accordance  with  the  character  of  the  sacrifice, 
is  probably  true.  Among  the  heathen,  the  skin 
of  the  sacrificial  animals  usually  belonged  to  the 
priest,  and  was  by  them  often  perverted  to  super- 
stitious uses.  See  Patrick,  Kalisch,  and  others. 
Some  commentators  trace  the  origin  of  the  cus- 
tom in  regard  to  the  burnt  offering  back  to 
Adam;  it  rather  lies  still  further  back  in  the 
nature  of  the  sacrifice. 

Ver.  9.  And  all  the  oblation. — Except,  of 
course,  the  "memorial,"  which  was  burned 
upon  the  altar,  and  which  having  been  carefully 
provided  for  in  chap,  ii.,  did  not  require  to  be 
specified  in  this  brief  summary.  In  this  verse 
all  cooked  oblations  are  assigned  to  the  officiating 
priest;  while  in  the  next  all  that  are  uncooked 
are  given  to  the  priestly  body  equally.  The 
former  included  all  the  oblations  of  ii.  4-10,  and 
it  is  generally  supposed  that  even  these  required 
to  be  consumed  without  delay  ;  the  latter  include 
the  oblations  of  ii.  1,  and  probably  that  of  ii.  15; 
also  the  alternative  sin  offering  of  v.  11,  and  the 
jealousy  offering  of  Num.  v.  15.  Only  the  two 
latter  come  under  the  class  of  dry,  the  others 
being  mingled  with  oil.  Thus  all  oblations, 
except  that  of  the  thank  offering  (vii.  14)  and 
the  "memorial"  in  all  cases,  was  in  oneway  or 
the  other  consumed  by  the  priests.  A  secondary 
object  in  the  assignment  of  these  sacrifices  was 
the  support  of  the  priests.     See  Ezek.  xliv.  29. 

P.  Instructions  for  the  priests  in  regard  to 
the  peace  offerings  in  their  variety,  vii.  11-21. 

For  the  reason  why  the  peace  offerings  are 
here  placed  last,  see  note  on  vi.  24. 

We  here  enter  upon  an  entirely  different  kind 
of  sacrifice  from  those  which  have  gone  before, 
and  therefore  there  is  a  different  ritual.  The 
former  had  reference  to  the  means  of  approach 
to  God  through  the  forgiveness  of  sin  ;  these  are 
more  closely  connected  with  the  idea  of  con- 
tinued communion  with  God,  and  hence,  so  far 
as  their  object  is  concerned,  seem  to  belong  more 
properly  to  the  second  part  of  the  book.  Never- 
theless, for  the  purpose  of  law,  the  stronger  con- 
nection is,  as  sacrifices,  with  the  general  laws 
of  sacrifice,  and  hence  they  must  necessarily  be 
placed  here.  Moreover,  they  are  not  to  be  con- 
sidered altogether  by  themselves,  but,  as  Outram 
has  noted,  as  generally  following  piacular  sacri- 
fices, and  therefore  as  together  with  them  form- 
ing the  complete  act  of  worship. 

The  peace  offerings  might  be  of  any  animal 
allowed   for  sacrifice  (except  birds  which  were 


too  small  for  the  accompanying  feast)  as  is  pro- 
vided in  chap.  iii.  They  might  be  of  either  the 
herd  or  the  flock,  and  either  male  or  female.  No 
limitation  of  age  is  given  in  the  law,  although 
Jewish  tradition  limits  the  age  of  those  offered 
from  the  herd  to  from  one  to  three  years,  and 
of  those  from  the  flock  to  from  one  to  two  years 
complete.  On  the  place  for  the  killing  of  the 
victims,  see  note  on  i.  11.  Historical  examples 
of  these  offerings  are  very  frequent  in  the  later 
books,  e.g.,  1  Sara.  i.  4;  ix.  13,  24;  xi.  15;  xvi. 
3,  5;  1  Kings  viii.  05;  1  Chron.  xvi.  3,  etc.  Si- 
milar sacrificial  feasts  among  the  heathen  are  fa- 
miliar to  all  readers  of  Homer. 

Three  varieties  of  the  peace  offering  are  dis- 
tinguished, or  rather  two  principal  kinds,  the 
second  of  which  is  again  subdivided — (a)  The 
thank  offering,  vers.  12-15,  which  included  all 
the  public  and  prescribed  peace  offerings;  (4) 
the  (1)  vow,  or  (2)  voluntary  offering,  vers.  16- 
18,  both  of  which  were  sacrifices  of  individuals. 
The  two  kinds  were  broadly  separated  from  one 
another  by  the  length  of  time  during  which  it 
was  lawful  to  eat  the  flesh,  while  the  sub-varie- 
ties of  the  second  kind  are  only  distinguished  in 
the  purpose  of  the  offerer.  "  There  are  three 
possible  forms  in  which  man  can  offer  with  re- 
ference to  his  prosperity  or  safety :  praise  and 
thanksgiving  for  experiences  in  the  past;  promi- 
sing in  regard  to  a  desire  in  the  future;  expression 
of  thankful  prosperity  in  the  present."  Lange. 

Vers.  12-15.   The  thank  offering. 

Ver.  12.  The  thank  offering  was  accompanied 
by  an  oblation  of  three  kinds,  to  which  a  fourth 
was  added  (ver.  13)  of  leavened  bread,  which 
last  is  perhaps  to  be  considered  as  an  accompani- 
ment rather  than  a  part  of  the  offering,  as  it  is 
doubtful  whether  it  is  included  in  the  "heave 
offering"  of  ver.  14.  Still,  as  none  of  this  ob- 
lation was  placed  upon  the  altar,  the  leavened 
bread  would  not  come  under  the  prohibition  of 
ii.  11  and  of  Ex.  xxiii.  18;  xxxiv.  25.  The 
drink  offerings  prescribed  with  this  and  other 
sacrifices  in  Num.  xv.  (and  alluded  to  in 
Lev.  xxiii.  18,  37)  as  to  be  offered  "when  ye 
be  come  into  the  land  of  your  habitation,"  are 
not  mentioned  here,  probably  because  they  were 
not  easily  obtained  during  the  life  in  the  wilder- 
ness. The  abundance  of  bread  of  various  kinds 
here  required  was  in  view  of  the  sacrificial  meal 
to  follow.  Jewish  tradition  affirms  that  with 
certain  peace  offerings  of  festivals  (Ilagigah  and 
Sheincah)  no  bread  was  offered. 

Ver.  14.  One  out  of  each  offering — i.  e., 
one  cake  out  of  the  number  of  each  kind  pre- 
sented, and  perhaps  one  from  the  loaves  of 
leavened  bread.  An  heave  offering. — Herein 
this  oblation  is  strongly  distinguished  from  the 
oblations  accompanying  the  burnt  offering.  No 
part  of  them  was  placed  upon  the  altar.  Comp. 
the  heave  offerings  of  the  Levites,  Num.  xviii. 
26-30.  It  must  be  inadvertently  that  Lange  says 
"one  of  the  unleavened  cakes  was  offered  to  Je- 
hovah on  His  altar  as  a  heave  offering;  all  the 
rest  of  the  meat  offering  fell  to  the  share  of  the 
priest  who  sacrificed  ;"  for  it  is  plain  from  the 
text  that  the  one  offered  as  a  heave  offering  was 
not  consumed,  but  belonged  to  the  officiating 
priest,  while  the  rest  were  returned  to  the  of- 
ferer.     The  heave  offering  was  waved   in  the 


CHAP.  VI.  8— VII.  38. 


61 


hands   up  and  down  before  the  altar,  but  not 
placed  upon  it. 

Ver.  15.  Shall  be  eaten  the  same  day. — 
Comp.  the  similar  provision  in  regard  to  the 
Paschal  lamb,  Ex.  xii.  10,  and  also  in  regard  to 
the  manna,  Ex.  xvi.  19.  The  same  command  is 
repeated  in  regard  to  the  thank  offering  in  xxii. 
29,  30;  while  the  greater  liberty  allowed  in  the 
vow  and  voluntary  offerings  (ver.  16)  is  also  re- 
peated xix.  5-8.  In  both  cases  Jewish  tradition 
affirms  that  the  rule  applied  also  to  the  accom- 
panying oblations.  The  difference  of  time  al- 
lowed in  which  the  flesh  of  these  two  kinds  of 
peace  offerings  might  be  eaten  evidently  marks 
the  one  as  of  a  superior  sacreduess  to  the  other. 
Yet  it  is  not  easy  to  say  wherein  precisely  the 
difference  consisted.  The  general  observation  is 
that  the  thank  offerings  were  purely  unselfish, 
offered  in  gratitude  for  blessings  already  re- 
ceived ;  while  the  vow  and  voluntary  offerings 
had  respect  to  something  yet  hoped  for,  and 
therefore  involved  a  Belfish  element.  But  it  is 
not  altogether  clear  that  this  was  the  case  with 
the  voluntary  offering.  Outram  (p.  131,  Eng 
tr. ),  on  the  authority  of  Maimonides  and  Abar- 
banel,  makes  the  distinction  to  consist  in  the  vow 
offering  being  general — a  promise  to  present  a 
certain  kind  of  victim  or  its  value,  and  this  re- 
mained in  all  cases  binding  ;  while  the  voluntary 
offering  was  particular — a  promise  to  present  a 
particular  animal,  which  became  void  in  case  of 
the  animal's  death.  Under  this  interpretation 
both  have  respect  to  the  future.  If  there  were 
any  accidental  remainder  of  the  thank  offering 
after  the  first  day,  it  was  doubtless  consumed 
(but  not  on  the  altar),  as  in  the  case  of  the  Pas- 
chal lamb  (Ex.  xii.  10)  and  of  the  other  peace 
offerings  (ver.  17),  and  the  consecration  offerings 
(Ex.  xxix.  34).  Several  reasons  have  been  as- 
signed for  the  limitation  of  the  time  for  eating. 
Outram  says,  "The  short  space  of  time  within 
which  the  victims  might  be  eaten,  seems  to  have 
been  designed  to  prevent  any  corruption  of  the 
sacrifices,  and  to  guard  against  covetousness," 
and  he  quotes  Philo  at  length  in  support  of  this 
double  reason.  The  incentive  hereby  added  to 
the  command  to  share  these  feasts  with  the 
poor,  and  especially  the  poor  Levites,  though  en- 
tirely rejected  by  Keil,  is  made  more  or  less  pro- 
minent by  Theodoret  (who  gives  this  reason 
only),  Corn,  a  Lapide,  Kalisch,  liosenniuller,  and 
others.  "The  recollection  that  in  warm  lands 
meat  soon  spoils,  may  give  us  the  idea  that  the 
feaster  was  compelled  in  consequence  to  invite 
in  the  poor."  Lange.  It  must  be  remembered  also 
that  the  feast  would  rapidly  lose  its  sacrificial  as- 
sociations as  the  interval  was  prolonged  between 
it  and  the  offering  of  the  sacrifice. 

Vers.  16-18.  The  vow  and  voluntary  offerings. 
The  distinction  between  these  has  already  been 
pointed  out.  Both  were  clearly  inferior  to  the 
thank  offering.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that 
these  did  not  belong  to  the  class  of  expiatory  of- 
ferings, and  hence  the  vow  offering  of  St.  Paul 
(Acts  xviii.  18  ;  xxi.  23-26)  had  in  it  nothing  in- 
consistent with  his  faith  in  the  one  Sacrifice  for 
sins  offered  on  Calvary.  These  offerings  might 
be  eaten  on  the  two  days  following  the  sacrifice, 
but  the  remainder  on  the  third  day  shall  be 
burnt  with  fire. 


Ver.  18.  The  penalty  for  the  transgression  of 
this  command  was  not  only  that  the  offering 
went  for  nothing — it  shall  not  be  accepted; 
but  further,  it  shall  be  an  abomination,  and 
the  soul  that  eateth  of  it  shall  bear  his  ini- 
quity. The  sense  is  not,  as  many  suppose,  that 
the  offering  being  made  void,  the  offerer  re- 
maiued  with  his  former  iniquity  uncleansed ;  for 
these  offerings  were  not  at  all  appointed  for  the 
purpose  of  atonement,  or  the  forgiveness  of  sin; 
but  that  the  offerer,  having  transgressed  a  plain 
and  very  positive  command,  must  bear  the  conse- 
quences of  such  transgression. 

The  distinctions  in  regard  to  these  offerings 
(as  in  the  case  of  those  which  have  gone  before) 
embrace  only  the  common  sacrifices  of  their 
kind.  There  were  other  special  peace-offerings 
(xxiii.  19,  20)  which  were  otherwise  dealt  with. 

In  later  times,  the  place  where  the  peace- 
offerings  might  be  eaten  was  restricted  to  the 
holy  city  (Deut.  xii.  6,  7,  11,  12) ;  at  present, 
there  was  no  occasion  for  such  a  command, 
while  all  were  together  in  the  camp  in  the  wil- 
derness. But  all  sacrificial  animals  slain  for  food 
must  be  offered  as  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  (xvii.3,4). 

Kalisch  (p.  144  ss.)  says:  "The  character  of 
these  feasts  cannot  be  mistaken.  It  was  that  of 
juyfulness  tempered  by  solemnity,  of  solemnity 
tempered  by  joyfulness :  the  worshipper  had 
submitted  to  God  an  offering  from  his  property; 
he  now  received  back  from  Him  a  part  of  the 
dedicated  gift,  and  thus  experienced  anew  the 
same  gracious  beneficence  which  had  enabled 
him  to  appear  with  his  wealth  before  the  altar; 
he  therefore  consumed  that  portion  with  feelings 
of  humility  and  thankfulness  ;  but  he  was  bid- 
den at  once  to  manifest  those  blissful  sentiments 
by  sharing  the  meat  not  only  with  his  house- 
hold, which  thereby  was  reminded  of  the  divine 
protection  and  mercy,  but  also  with  his  needy 
fellow-beings,  whether  laymen  or  servants  of 
the  temple.  Thus  these  beautiful  repasts  were 
stamped  both  with  religious  emotion  and  human 
virtue.  The  relation  of  friendship  between  God 
and  the  offerer  which  the  sacrifice  exhibited 
was  expressed  and  sealed  by  the  feast  which 
intensified  that  relation  into  one  of  an  actual 
covenant ;  the  momentary  harmony  was  extended 
to  a  permanent  union  ;  and  these  notions  could 
not  be  expressed  more  intelligibly,  at  least  to 
an  Eastern  people,  than  by  a  common  meal, 
which  to  them  is  the  familiar  image  of  friend- 
ship and  communion,  of  cheerfulness  and  joy. 
.  .  .  .  Some  critics  have  expressed  an  opposite 
view,  contending  that  the  offerer  was  not  consi- 
dered as  the  guest  of  God,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
God  as  the  guest  of  the  offerer;  but  this  is 
against  the  clear  expressions  of  the  law ;  the 
sacrificer  surrendered  the  whole  victim  to  the 
Deity  (iii.  1,  6,  7,  12),  and  confirmed  his  inten- 
tion by  burning  on  the  altar  the  fat  parts,  which 
represented  the  entire  animal.  .  .  .  The  Apos- 
tle Paul  says  distinctly  :  'Are  not  they  who  eat 
of  the  sacrifices  partakers  of  the  altar'  or  'of 
the  Lord's  table?'  " 

Vers.  19-21.  The  sanctity  of  even  this  inferior 
sacrifice  is  strongly  guarded.  Peace-offerings 
being  representative  especially  of  communion 
with  the  Most  Holy,  all  uncleanness  or  contact 
with  uncleanness  is  rigorously  forbidden. 


62 


LEVITICUS. 


Ver.  19.  And  as  for  the  flesh,  all  that  be 
Clean  shall  eat  thereof. — meaning,  of  course, 
the  flesh  in  general — that  which  has  not  touched 
any  unclean  thing.  The  sense  might  easily  be 
made  more  clear;  but  there  is  no  ground  for 
altering  the  translation. 

Ver.  20.  Shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people, 
t.  e.  be  excommunicated,  cast  out  from  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel.  This  might  sometimes,  as 
in  Ex.  xxxi.  11,  involve  also  the  punishment  of 
death,  but  only  when  the  offence  was  also  a 
civil  one.  Capital  punishment  is  not  intended 
by  the  expression  itself. — That  pertain  unto 
the  Lord. — This  shows  plainly  enough  that  the 
victim,  once  offered,  was  considered  as  belong- 
ing to  God,  and  hence  that  they  who  feasted 
upon  it  were  the  guests  of  the  Lord. 

Ver.  21.  Unclean  beast,  etc.  This  is  to  be 
understood  of  the  dead  bodies  of  these  animals. 
Uncleanness  was  not  communicated  by  their 
touch  while  living;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
was  communicated  by  the  touch  of  the  body, 
even  of  clean  animals  which  had  died  a  natural 
death,  or  as  we  should  say,  of  carrion. 

Nothing  is  here  said  of  the  portion  of  the 
priests,  that  being  the  subject  of  a  distinct  di- 
vine communication  (vers.  28-30). 

G.  Instructions  in  regard  to  the  Fat  and  the 
Blood.  Vers.  22-27.  From  its  importance,  this 
group  of  commands  forms  the  exclusive  subject 
of  another  communication,  and  is  addressed  to 
the  people,  because,  while  these  portions  were  in 
the  especial  charge  of  the  priests,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  warn  the  people  very  carefully  against 
making  use  of  them  themselves.  It  comes  ap- 
propriately in  connection  with  the  peace  offer- 
ings, because  it  was  only  of  these  that  the  peo- 
ple eat  at  all,  and  hence  here  there  was  especial 
liability  to  transgress  this  command. 

Ver.  22.  No  manner  of  fat,  of  ox,  or  of 
sheep,  or  of  goat. — The  prohibition  of  the 
eating  of  fat  extends  only  to  the  sacrificial  ani- 
mals, and  is  to  be  so  understood  in  ch.  iii.  17. 
The  reason  of  this  prohibition  appears  in  ver. 
25 :  this  fat  was  appropriated  to  burning  upon 
the  altar,  and  hence  any  other  use  of  it  was  a 
profanation.  While  the  Israelites  were  in  the 
wilderness,  all  animals  slain  for  food,  which 
were  allowed  in  sacrifice,  were  presented  as 
victims,  and  their  fat  wa9  burned  on  the  altar. 
Afterwards,  in  view  of  the  settlement  in  the 
promised  land,  this  restriction  was  removed, 
L>eut.  xii.  15,  21.  With  that  permission  the 
prohibition  of  blood  is  emphatically  repeated; 
but  nothing  is  said  of  the  fat.  Hence  Keil  ar- 
gues that  in  such  case  the  eating  of  the  fat  was 
allowable,  and  this  opinion  is  strongly  confirmed 
by  Deut.  xxxii.  14,  enumerating  among  the  good 
things  to  be  enjoyed  the  "fat  of  lambs,  and 
rams  of  the  breed  of  Bashan."  Nevertheless, 
the  language  of  universal  prohibition  is  distinct 
in  ch.  iii.  17,  unless  that  is  to  be  understood 
only  of  animals  offered  in  sacrifice.  The  gene- 
rality of  commentators  understand,  in  accord- 
ance with  Jewish  tradition,  that  the  fat  of  the 
sacrificial  animals  was  perpetually  forbidden. 
In  any  case  the  prohibited  fat  wa9  of  course 
that  which  was  burned  on  the  altar,  the  separa- 
ble fat,  not  that  which  was  intermingled  with 
the  flesh. 


Ver.  24.  That  which  died  of  itself,  its  blood 
not  having  been  poured  out,  and  that  which  was 
torn  of  beasts,  was  prohibited  as  food  (xxii.  8), 
and  if  any  partook  of  it,  he  must  undergo  puri- 
fication, and  "be  unclean  until  the  even"  (xvii. 
15).  The  fat  of  such  animals  therefore  could 
no  more  be  eaten  than  their  flesh;  but  since  it 
was  also  unfit  for  the  altar,  it  might  be  used 
in  any  other  use.  Nothing  is  said  of  the  tat 
of  fowls  as  no  special  use  was  made  of  this  oa 
the  altar. 

Vers.  26,  27.  The  prohibition  of  blood  is  ab- 
solute and  perpetual,  and  this  for  the  reasons 
given  in  xvii.  11.  It  has  been  urged  that  as 
nothing  is  anywhere  said  of  the  blood  of  fish, 
that  is  not  included  in  the  prohibition.  More 
probably  this  was  of  too  little  importance  to  ob- 
tain particular  mention,  and  the  general  princi- 
ple on  which  blood  is  absolutely  forbidden  must 
be  considered  as  applying  here  also,  notwith- 
standing any  tradition  to  the  contrary. 

H.  Instructions  for  the  priests'  portion  of  the 
peace  offerings.     Vers.  28-36. 

This,  the  final  communication  of  this  part  of 
the  book,  is  also  addressed  to  the  people,  be- 
cause the  priests'  portion  was  taken  from  that 
which  would  otherwise  have  been  returned  to 
them,  and  it  therefore  concerned  them  to  under- 
stand the  law.  It  stands  here  quite  in  its  right 
place :  "  When  the  priest's  rights  in  all  the 
other  sacrifices  were  enumerated,  this  was  omit- 
ted, because  the  people  here  took  the  place  of 
the  priest  in  respect  of  the  flesh.  When  the 
special  nature  of  this  offering  in  this  respect 
has  been  made  prominent,  a  new  communication 
is  made,  addressed  to  the  sons  of  Israel,  and 
directing  them,  among  other  things,  to  assign 
certain  portions  of  the  victim  to  the  priest." 
Murphy. 

Ver.  29.  Shall  bring  his  offering  unto 
the  Lord. — The  object  of  this  provision  seems 
to  be  to  secure  an  actual,  instead  of  a  merely 
constructive  offering.  As  most  of  the  flesh  was 
to  be  consumed  by  the  offerer,  it  might  possibly 
have  been  supposed  sufficient  merely  to  send 
in  the  consecrated  parts;  but  the  law  regards 
the  whole  as  offered  to  the  Lord,  and  therefore 
requires  that  it  shall  be  distinctly  presented 
before  Him. 

Ver.  30.  His  own  hands  shall  bring. — 
Still  further  to  guard  the  sacrificial  character 
of  this  offering,  which  was  more  in  danger  of 
being  secularized  than  any  other,  it  is  required 
that  the  parts  especially  destined  for  the  Lord's 
use  might  not  be  sent  in  by  any  servant  or  other 
messenger,  but  must  be  presented  by  the  offer- 
er's own  hands.  Comp.  viii.  27;  Ex.  xxix. 
24-26  j  Num.  vi.  19,  20.— The  fat  with  the 
breast. — The  construction  of  Sv>_  is  as  in  Ex. 
xii.  8,  9.  Breast  is  that  part  'between  the  shoul- 
ders in  front  which  we  call  the  brisket,  and  which 
included  the  cartilaginous  breast-bone. 

A  wave-offering. — The  breast  is  to  be  a 
wave-offering,  the  right  leg  {ver.  31)  a  heave- 
offering.  These  two  kinds  of  offering  are 
clearly  distinguished  in  the  law.  Both  are 
mentioned  together  in  ver.  34,  and  frequently 
(x.  14,  15;  Ex.  xxix  24-27;  Num.  vi.  20;  xviii. 
11,  18,  19,  etc.)  as  distinct  offerings;  the  heave- 


CHAP.  VI.  S— VII.  38. 


63 


offering  is  mentioned  alone  (xxii.  12;  Ex.  xxv. 
2,  3;  xxx.  13-15;  xxxv.  5;  xxxvi.  3,  6;  Num. 
xv.  19-21;  xviii.  24  ;  xxxi.29,41,  52,  etc.),  and  so 
is  the  wave  offering  (xiv.  12,  21,  24;  xxiii.  15, 
17,  20;  Ex.  xxxviii.  24,  29;  Num.  viii.  11,  13, 
etc.);  although  both  apparently  are  sometimes 
used  simply  in  the  sense  of  offering  and  coupled 
together  without  distinction  of  meaning  (Ex. 
xxxv.  21-24);  both  are  here  applied  to  the  offer- 
ings of  metal  for  the  tabernacle,  though  the 
other  offerings  are  only  spoken  of  as  heave 
offerings.  The  distinction  is  much  obscured  in 
the  A.  V.  by  the  frequent  translation  of  both  by 
the  simple  word  offering,  and  sometimes  without 
any  note  of  this  in  the  margin.  In  regard  to 
the  parts  of  the  sacrifices  designated  by  the  two 
terms,  the  distinction  is  clearly  marked;  the 
heave-leg  belonged  exclusively  to  the  officiating 
priest,  while  the  wave-breast  was  the  common 
property  of  the  priestly  order.  The  distinction 
in  the  ceremonial  between  them  it  is  less  easy  to 
make.  That  of  the  wave  offering  appears  to 
have  been  the  more  solemn  and  emphatic,  con- 
sisting in  the  priest  placing  his  hands  under 
those  of  the  offerer  (which  held  the  offering  to 
be  waved),  and  moving  them  to  and  fro — some 
of  the  Rabbins  say,  towards  each  of  the  four 
quarters,  and  also  up  and  down.  The  heaving, 
on  the  other  hand,  appears  to  have  been  a  sim- 
ple lifting  up  of  the  offering.  (See  authorities 
in  Outraru  I.  15,  (j  V.)  In  all  cases  of  the  wave 
offering  of  parts  of  animals,  only  the  fat  was 
burned,  except  in  the  peculiar  case  of  the  con- 
secration of  the  priests  commanded  in  Ex.  xxix. 
22-26,  and  fulfilled  in  viii.  25-29,  when  the  leg 
was  also  burned.  In  the  case  of  the  "  waving" 
of  the  Levites  (Num.  viii.  11-19),  they  were 
wholly  given  up  to  God  as  the  ministrants  of  the 
priests.  Langesays:  "  The  breast  may  repre- 
sent the  bold  readiness,  the  leg  the  energetic 
progress,  which  in  the  priest  are  always  desi- 
rable.'' 

During  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  where 
all  sacrificial  animals  that  were  to  be  eaten  were 
offered  in  sacrifice,  the  priests'  portion  was  only 
the  breast  and  the  right  leg  ;  afterwards,  when 
permission  was  given  to  kill  these  animals  for 
food  in  the  scattered  habitations  of  the  people, 
and  thereby  the  perquisites  of  the  priests  were 
greatly  reduced,  there  was  added  (Deut.  xviii. 
3)  "the  shoulder  (>'"!!)  and  the  two  cheeks  and 
the  maw." 

Ver.  34.  A  statute  forever. — As  long  as  the 
sacrificial  system  and  the  Aaronic  priesthood 
should  endure. 

Ver.  35.  In  the  day  when  he  presented 
them.  —  At  the  time  when  God,  by  the  hand  of 
Moses,  brought  them  near  to  minister.  The  verb 
is  without  an  expressed  nominative  in  the  He- 
brew as  in  the  English. 

The  conclusion  of  this  part  of  the  book.  Vers. 
37,  38. 

Ver.  37.  The  enumeration  in  this  verse  is  to 
be  understood  not  merely  of  the  immediately  pre- 
ceding section  :  but  of  the  whole  law  of  sacrifice 
as  given  in  all  the  preceding  chapters. 

Of  the  consecrations. — Lit.,  "of  the  fill- 
ings" se.  of  the  hands.  Comp.  Ex.  xxix.  19-28. 
The  ordinance  for  the  consecration  of  the  priests 


has  been  given  in  full  there;  but  still  something 
of  it  has  been  directed  here  (vi.  19-23)  so  that  it 
must  necessarily  appear  in  this  recapitulation. 

Ver.  38.  In  Mount  Sinai.— That  this  ex- 
pression is  used  broadly  for  the  region  of  Mt. 
Sinai,  not  distinctively  for  the  mountain  itself, 
is  apparent  from  the  concluding  clause  of  the 
verse. 

DOCTRINAL   AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  In  the  stress  laid  upon  the  necessity  of 
maintaining  perpetually  the  fire  divinely  kindled 
on  the  altar,  is  taught  the  necessity  of  thediviue 
approval  of  the  means  by  which  man  seeks  to 
approach  God.  The  only  Mediator  under  the 
old  Covenant  as  under  the  new,  is  Christ ;  but 
as  the  divine  appointment  was  of  old  necessary 
to  constitute  the  types  which  prefigured  Him, 
and  by  means  of  which  the  worshipper  availed 
himself  of  His  sacrifice, — so  now,  man  may  claim 
the  benefits  of  Christ's  work  for  his  redemption 
only  in  those  ways  which  God  has  approved. 

II.  The  priests,  and  the  high-priest,  like  the 
people,  must  offer  oblations  and  sacrifices.  They 
were  separated  from  the  people  only  in  so  far  as 
the  functions  of  their  office  required;  in  the  in- 
dividual relation  of  their  souls  to  God,  they 
formed  no  caste,  and  stood  before  Him  on  no  dif- 
ferent footing  from  others.  This  is  a  funda- 
mental principle  in  all  the  divine  dealings  with 
man  ;  "  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God," 
(Rom.  ii.  11,  etc.). 

III.  In  the  assimilation  of  the  trespass  to  the 
sin  offering  is  showu  how  wrong  done  to  man  is 
also  sin  against  God  ;  while  in  the  peculiar  or- 
dinances belonging  to  the  sin  offering  alone,  we 
see  the  peculiar  sinfulness  of  that  sin  which  is 
committed  directly  against  God. 

IV.  The  provision  for  a  portion  for  the  priests 
from  the  various  offerings,  and  from  the  oblation 
accompanying  the  whole  burnt  offering  sets  forth 
in  act  the  general  principle  declared  in  words  in 
the  New  Testament,  "  that  they  which  minister 
about  holy  things  live  of  the  things  of  the  tem- 
ple."  (1  Cor.  ix.  13). 

V.  The  peace  offerings  are  called  in  the  LXX. 
frequently  "sacrifices  of  praise  "  (thiaicu  rijc  al- 
veadjc)  ;  by  the  use  of  the  same  phraseology  in 
the  Ep.  to  the  Heb.  (xiii.  15)  applied  to  Christ, 
He  is  pointed  out  as  the  Antitype  of  this  sacri- 
fice :  "  By  Him,  therefore,  let  us  offer  the  sacri- 
fice of  praise  (Bvaicv  alv(oeac)  to  God  continu- 
ally;" and  again  (ver.  10)  "  We  have  an  altar 
whereof  they  have  no  right  to  eat  which  serve 
the  tabernacle." 

VI.  In  the  oblation  accompanying  the  peace 
offering  leavened  bread  was  required.  This 
could  not  be  admitted  for  burning  upon  the  altar 
for  reasons  already  given  ;  nevertheless  it  must 
be  presented  to  the  Lord  for  a  heave  offering. 
Many  things  in  man's  daily  life  cannot,  from 
their  nature,  be  directly  appropriated  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God ;  yet  all  must  be  sanctified  by  being 
presented  before  Him. 

VII.  In  the  strict  prohibition  to  the  people  of 
the  fat  which  was  appropriated  as  the  Lord's 
portion  was  taught,  in  a  way  suited  to  the  ap- 
prehension of  the  Israelites,  the  general  princi- 
ple that  whatever  has  been  appropriated  to  God 
may  not  rightly  be  diverted  to  any  other  use. 


64 


LEVITICUS. 


VIII.  The  various  kinds  of  sacrifice  here  re- 
cognized as  means  of  approach  to  God,  and  the 
provisions  for  their  constant  repetition,  alike 
indicate  their  intrinsic  insufficiency  and  tempo- 
rary character.  Otherwise  *'  would  they  not 
have  ceased  to  be  offered,  because  that  the  wor- 
shippers once  purged  should  have  had  no  more 
conscience  of  sins  ?"   (Heb.  x.  2). 

IX.  The  same  temporary  and  insufficient  cha- 
racter attached  to  the  peace  offerings,  which  ex- 
pressed communion  with  God.  As  Keil  has 
pointed  out,  they  still  left  the  people  in  the  outer 
court,  while  God  was  enthroned  behind  the  vail 
in  the  holy  of  holies,  and  this  vail  could  only  be 
removed  by  the  sacrifice  on  Calvary.  And  in 
general,  as  the  office  of  the  old  Covenant  was  to 
give  the  knowledge  of  sin  rather  than,  by  any- 
thing within  itself,  completely  to  do  it  away  ;  so 
was  it  designed  to  awaken  rather  than  to  satisfy 
the  desire  for  reconciliation  and  communion 
with  God.  In  so  far  as  it  actually  accomplished 
cither  purpose,  it  was  by  its  helping  the  faith 
of  the  worshippers  to  lean,  through  its  types, 
upon  the  one  true  Sacrifice  in  the  future. 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

VI.  Vera.  9-13.  The  ever-burning  fire  ;  kin- 
dled by  God,  but  kept  alive  by  man ;  the  accept- 
ance of  our  efforts  to  approach  God  is  from  Him, 
but  He  gives  or  withholds  it  according  to  our 
desire  and  exertion.  "  Quench  not  the  Spirit." 
(1  Thess.  v.  19).  The  Spirit  {.uoiroiel,  but  it  is 
for  us  rira^uiTvpclv  (2  Tim.  i.  6)  Wordsworth.  Put 
on  his  linen  garment ;  the  inward  purity  re- 
quired in  those  who  are  serving  immediately  at 
the  altar  is  fitly  symbolized  by  outward  signs. 
Even  that  which  is  becoming  in  service  of  other 
kinds,  as  the  carrying  forth  of  the  ashes,  may 
well  be  replaced  in  duties  which  are  more  nearly 
related  to  the  divine  Presence. 

Vers.  14-18.  The  oblation.  That  is  truly  of- 
fered to  God  which  is  consumed  in  His  service, 
though  but  the  "  memorial  "  of  it  and  the  frank- 
incense, typifying  prayer  and  praise,  can  be  ac- 
tually given  directly  to  Him.  Whatsoever 
toucheth  them  shall  be  holy.— As  there  is 
a  contaminating  effect  in  contact  with  evil,  so 
is  there  a  sanctifying  effect  from  close  contact 
with  that  which  is  holy.  The  woman  in  the 
Gospel  by  faith  touched  the  holy  One,  and  virtue 
went  forth  to  heal  her  from  her  uucleanness. 
Origen  (Horn.  4  in  Lev.). 

Vers.  19-23.  The  high-priest  mu«t  offer  an  ob- 
lation for  himself  as  well  as  for  the  people.  Man 
never  reaches  on  earth  a  stage  of  holiness  so 
high  that  he  needs  not  means  of  approach  to 
God;  He  alone  who  "  was  without  sin"  offered 
Himself  for  us. 

Vers.  24-30.  Everything  connected  with  the 
sin-offering  is  to  be  scrupulously  guarded  from 
defilement,  and  everything  which  it  touches  re- 
ceives from  it  somewhat  of  its  own  character  ;  a 
fit  emblem  and  type  of  the  true  Sacrifice  for  sins, 


Himself  without  sin.  Whoever  seeks  the  benefit 
of  this  Sacrifice,  must  "  die  unto  sin,"  and  who- 
ever is  sprinkled  by  His  all-availing  blood  be- 
comes thereby  "  purged  from  sin."  Yet  even 
so,  the  virtue  of  that  blood  may  not  be  carried 
out  of  the  sanctuary  of  God's  presence  ;  they 
who,  having  been  touched  by  the  blood  shed  on 
Calvary,  would  depart  from  communion  with  God, 
must  leave  behind  them  all  the  efficacy  of  that 
atonement. 

VII.  Vers.  1-6.  Though  the  sin  whose  promi- 
nent feature  is  harm  done,  be  less  than  that  in 
which  the  offence  is  more  directly  against  God, 
yet  for  the  forgiveness  of  one  there  is  essentially 
the  same  law  as  for  the  other.  Both  are  viola- 
tions of  the  law  of  love,  and  love  toward  God  and 
man  are  so  bound  together  that  neither  can  truly 
exist  without  the  other  (1  Jno.  iv.  20),  and  there 
can  be  no  breach  of  the  one  without  the  other. 

Vers.  11-21.  The  peace  offering  was  at  once 
communion  of  the  offerer  with  God  and  also  the 
opportunity  for  extending  his  bounty  to  his  fel- 
low-men. So  always  there  is  the  same  connec- 
tion. It  was  said  to  Cornelius,  "  Thy  prayers 
and  thine  alms  are  come  up  for  a  memorial." 
"  To  do  good  and  to  communicate  forget  not ; 
for  with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased" 
(Heb.  xiii.  16).  The  thank  offering  has  a  higher 
place  than  the  vow  or  the  voluntary  offering: 
that  is  a  nearer  communion  with  God  in  which 
the  grateful  heart  simply  pours  out  its  thanks- 
givings, than  that  in  which,  with  some  touch  of 
selfishness,  it  still  seeks  some  further  blessing. 
Yet  both  are  holy.  But  uncleanness  allowed  to 
continue,  debarred  from  such  communion  ;  and 
sin.  unrepeuted,  in  its  very  nature  now  forbids  it. 
Vers.  37,  38.  A  summary  of  the  law  of  sacri- 
fice in  its  variety.  All  these  sacrifices  were  (as 
elsewhere  shown)  types  of  Christ;  for  it  was 
impossible  that  the  fulness  of  His  gracious  offices 
could  be  set  forth  by  any  single  type.  He  is  at 
once  the  whole  burnt  offering  of  complete  conse- 
cration of  Himself,  through  whom  also  we  "pre- 
sent our  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  accept- 
able unto  God  ;"  and  He  is,  too,  the  oblation,  as 
that  which  man  must  present  to  God  with  his 
other  sacrifices,  as  it  is  in  and  through  Christ 
alone  that  our  sacrifices  can  be  acceptable  ;  He 
is  the  sin  offering,  as  it  is  through  Him  alone 
that  our  sins  can  be  "covered"  and  effectual 
atonement  be  made  for  us;  as  trespass  offering 
also,  it  is  through  His  love  shed  abroad  from 
Calvary,  that  we  learn  that  love  towards  our  fel- 
low-men in  the  exercise  of  which  only  can  our 
transgressions  against  Him  be  forgiven  ;  and  so 
too  is  He  the  peace  offering,  for  His  very  name 
is  "Peace."  His  coming  was  "peace  on  earth,'' 
and  by  Him  have  we  peace  and  communion  with 
God.  No  one  of  these  alone  can  fully  typify 
Christ;  beforehand  each  of  His  great  offices  in 
our  behalf  must  be  set  forth  by  a  separate  sym- 
bolical teaching ;  but  when  He  has  come,  all 
these  separate  threads  are  gathered  into  one, 
and  He  is  become  our  "all  in  all." 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  LEVITICAL  PRIESTHOOD. 


65 


PART  SECOND.    HISTORICAL. 


Chapters  VIII.— X. 


"  The  Sacrificing  Priesthood:    Its  Consecration  and  its    Typical  Discipline  shown   by  the  Death  of 

Nadab  and  Abihu." — Lange. 

The  law  of  sacrifices  having  now  been  given,  and  the  duties  of  the  priests  in  regard  to  them  appointed,  all  necessary 
preparation  has  been  made  for  carrying  out  the  consecration  of  the  priests  as  commanded  in  Ex.  xxix.  This  historical  sec- 
tion follows,  therefore,  in  its  natural  order,  and  takes  up  the  thread  of  events  at  the  close  of  the  book  of  Exodus,  where  it 
was  broken  off  that  the  necessary  laws  might  be  announced.  There  is,  first,  the  consecration  of  the  priests  (chap,  viii.l,  oc- 
cupying seven  days;  then  the  record  of  the  actual  entrance  of  Aaron  and  his  6ons  upon  the  discharge  of  their  functiona 
(chap,  ix.);  closing  with  the  account  of  the  transgression  of  two  of  those  sons  in  their  first  official  act,  and  their  consequent 
punishment,  together  with  certain  instructions  for  the  priests  occasioned  by  this  event  (chap.  x.t.  To  enter  understandingly 
npon  the  consideration  of  these  chapters,  it  is  necessary  to  have  in  mind  the  origin,  nature,  and  functions  of  the  priest- 
hood.   These  will  be  briefly  discussed  in  the  following 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  LEVITICAL  PRIESTHOOD. 


In  the  early  days  of  the  human  race  such 
priestly  functions  as  were  exercised  at  all  were 
naturally  undertaken  by  the  head  of  the  family, 
and  hence  arose  what  is  called  the  patriarchal 
priesthood,  of  which  the  Scripture  patriarchs  are 
standing  illustrations.  When,  however,  families 
were  multiplied  and  formed  into  communities  or 
nations,  the  former  provision  was  manifestly  in- 
sufficient, and  we  meet  with  instances  of  priests 
for  a  larger  number,  as  Jethro,  "the  priest  of 
Midian"  (for  priest  seems  here  to  be  the  proper 

rendering  of  ]!"I3).  The  chief  priestly  office  was 
sometimes,  and  perhaps  generally,  associated 
with  the  chief  civil  authority,  as  in  the  case  of 

"Melchisedec,  king  of  Salem the  priest 

of  the  Most  High  God"  (Gen.  xiv.  18),  and 
among  the  heathen,  Balak,  who  offered  his  sacri- 
fices himself  (Num.  xxiii.);  a  trace  of  this  custom 
may  perhaps  be  preserved  in  the  occasional  use 

of  JH3  for  prince  (Job  xii.  19;  2  Sam.  viii.  18; 
xx.  26?).  But  in  large  nations  the  actual  func- 
tions of  the  priestly  office  must  necessarily  have 
devolved  chiefly  upon  inferior  priests.  In  Egypt 
the  Israelites  had  been  accustomed  to  a  numerous, 
wealthy,  and  powerful  body  of  priests,  at  the 
head  of  which  stood  the  monarch.  It  is  unneces- 
sary to  speak  of  these  further  than  to  note  a  few 
points  in  which  they  were  strongly  contrasted 
with  the  priests  of  Israel.  In  the  first  place,  al- 
though the  monarch  was  at  the  head  of  the  whole 
priestly  caste,  yet  as  the  popular  religion  of 
Egypt  was  polytheistic,  each  principal  Divinity 
had  his  especial  body  of  priests  with  a  high- 
priest  at  their  head.  In  contrast  with  this,  mo- 
notheism was  distinctly  set  forth  in  the  Levitical 
legislation,  by  the  one  body  of  priests,  with  its 
single  high-priest  at  its  head.  The  Egyptian 
priests  maintained  an  esoteric  theology,  not  com- 
municated to  the  people,  in  which  it  would  ap- 


pear that  the  unity  of  the  Self-existent  God  and 
many  other  important  truths  were  taught;  in 
Israel  the  priests  were  indeed  the  keepers  and 
guardians  of  the  law  (Deut.  xxxi.  9,  etc.),  but 
they  were  diligently  to  teach  it  all  to  the  people 
(Lev.  x.  11),  to  read  the  whole  of  it  every  seventh 
year  to  all  the  assembled  people  (Deut.  xxxi. 
10-13),  to  supply  the  king  with  a  copy  for  him- 
self to  write  out  in  full  (Deut.  xvii.  18,  19),  and 
in  general  to  teach  God's  judgments  to  Jacob  and 
His  law  to  Israel  (Deut.  xxxiii.  10).  While, 
therefore,  from  the  nature  of  their  occupation, 
they  might  be  expected  to  have  a  more  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  law  than  the  generality  of  the 
people,  this  knowledge  was  only  more  perfect  as 
the  result  of  more  continued  study,  and  might  be 
equalled  by  any  one  who  chose,  and  was  actually 
shared  by  every  one  as  far  as  he  chose.  The 
Egyptian  priests  were,  moreover,  great  landed 
proprietors  (besides  being  fed  from  the  royal 
revenues,  Gen.  xlvii.  22),  and  actually  possessed 
one-third  of  the  whole  territory  of  Egypt;  the 
priests  of  Israel,  on  the  contrary,  were  expressly 
excluded  from  the  common  inheritance  of  the 
tribes,  and  had  assigned  to  them  only  the  cities 
with  their  immediate  suburbs  actually  required 
for  their  residence.  The  priesthood  of  Egypt 
culminated  in  the  absolute  monarch  who  was  at 
their  head,  and  in  whose  authority  they  in  some 
degree  shared  ;  in  Israel,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
line  between  the  civil  and  the  priestly  authority 
and  functions  was  most  sharply  drawn,  primarily 
in  the  case  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  Joshua  and 
Eleazar,  generally  in  the  time  of  the  judges  (al- 
though in  that  troubled  period  this,  like  all  other 
parts  of  the  Mosaic  system,  was  sometimes  con- 
fused), and  finally  under  the  monarchy.  It  is 
indeed  sometimes  asserted  that  the  kings,  by 
virtue  of  their  prerogative,  were  entitled  to  exer- 
cise priestly  functions;  but  for  this  there  is  no 
real  ground.     The  instances  relied  on  are  either 


06 


LEVITICUS. 


manifest  cases  of  sacrifice  offered  at  the  coramaud 
of  the  monarch  (1  Kings  iii.  15;  viii.  62-64) ;  or 
of  the  simple  wearing  of  an  ephod  (2  Sam.  vi. 
14),  which  by  no  means  carried  with  it  the 
priestly  office;  or  else  are  misinterpretations  of 
a  particular  word  (1  Kings  iv.  2,  5 — see  the 
Textual  notes  there;  2  Sam.  viii.  18 — the  only 
case  of  real  difficulty — comp.  1  Chr.  xviii.  17). 
There  are  but  two  definite  instances  of  the  as- 
sumption of  priestly  functions  by  kings,  and 
both  of  them  were  most  sternly  punished  (1 
Sam.  xiii.  10-14;  2  Chron.  xxvi.  16-21).  There 
was  also  the  intrusion  of  Korah  and  his  compa- 
nions on  the  priestly  office  and  their  exemplary 
punishment  (Num.  xvi.).  In  the  later  abnormal 
state  under  the  Maccabees,  it  was  not  the  kings 
who  assumed  priestly  functions,  but  the  priests 
who  absorbed  the  royal  prerogative.  With  these 
contrasts,  it  is  plain  that  there  was  little  in  com- 
mon between  the  Egyptian  and  Levitical  priest- 
hood, except  what  is  necessarily  implied  in  the 
idea  of  a  priesthood  at  all,  and  is  found  in  that 
of  the  nations  of  antiquity  generally.  They 
were,  however,  both  hereditary  (as  was  also  the 
Brahminical  priesthood) ;  both  were  under  a  law 
of  the  strictest  personal  cleanliness,  and  there 
was  a  resemblance  between  them  in  several  mat- 
ters of  detail,  as  linen  dress,  and  other  non-es- 
sential matters. 

When  the  Israelites  came  out  of  Egypt,  they 
were  a  people  chosen — on  condition  of  faithful- 
ness and  obedience — to  be  "a  kingdom  of  priests 
and  an  holy  nation"  (Ex.  xix.  C),  and  in  accord- 
ance with  this  the  paschal  lamb  was  sacrificed 
by  each  head  of  a  household,  and  eaten  by  him- 
self and  his  family  (Ex.  xii.  6),  and  the  same 
idea  was  retained  in  this  sacrifice  always.  Never- 
theless, the  people  were  unprepared  for  so  high  a 
vocation,  and  soon  after  we  find  the  existence  of 
certain  persons  among  the  people  recognized  as 
priests  "which  come  near  to  the  Lord"  (Ex. 
xix.  22,  24),  although  they  did  not  receive  the 
Divine  sanction  necessary  to  the  continuauce  of 
their  office.  We  have  no  knowledge  of  the  na- 
ture of  their  functions,  nor  of  their  appointment. 
However  this  may  have  been,  the  people  cer- 
tainly shrank  from  that  nearness  of  approach  to 
God  implied  in  the  office  of  priest  (Ex.  xx.  19, 
21;  Deut.  v.  23-27),  and  sacrifices  were  offered 
by  "young  men"  appointed  by  Moses,  lie  re- 
serving to  himself  the  strictly  priestly  function 
of  sprinkling  the  blood  (Ex.  xxiv.  5-8).  Such 
was  the  state  of  things  at  the  time  of  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  Aaronic  order;  there  was  no 
divinely  authorized  priesthood,  and  the  need  of 
one  was  felt. 

Meantime,  in  the  solitude  of  Sinai,  God  di- 
rected Moses  to  take  Aaron  and  his  sons  for  an 
hereditary  priesthood  (Ex.  xxviii.  1),  and  gave 
minute  directions  for  their  official  dress,  for 
their  consecration  and  their  duties  (Ex.  xxviii., 
xxix.).  Emphasis  is  everywhere  placed  upon 
the  fact  that  they  were  appointed  of  God  (comp. 
Heb.  v.  4).  They  were  in  no  sense  appointed  by 
the  people;  had  they  been  so,  they  could  not 
have  been  mediators.  It  has  been  seen  that  the 
Levitical  system  makes  prominent  the  fact  that 
the  sacrifices  had  no  efficacy  in  themselves,  but 
derived  their  whole  value  from  the  Divine  ap- 
pointment ;  so  also  in  regard  to  the  priesthood. 


The  priests  appear  as  themselves  needing  atone- 
ment, aud  obliged  to  offer  for  their  own  sins; 
yet  by  the  commanded  unction  and  dress  they 
are  constituted  acceptable  intercessors  and  me- 
diators for  the  people.  All  was  from  God  ;  and 
while  this  gave  assurance  to  the  people  in  their 
daily  worship,  at  the  same  time  the  priests'  own 
imperfection  showed  that  the  true  reconciliation 
with  God  by  the  restoration  of  holiness  to  man 
had  not  yet  been  manifested.  The  Levitical 
priest  could  be  but  a  type  of  that  Seed  of  the 
woman  who  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head. 

Before  the  directions  concerning  the  priest- 
hood, given  to  Moses  alone  in  the  Mount,  could 
be  announced,  occurred  the  terrible  apostasy  of 
the  golden  calf,  when,  at  the  summons  of  Moses, 
"  who  is  on  the  Lord's  side?"  the  whole  tribe 
of  Levi  consecrated  themselves  by  their  zeal  on 
God's  behalf  (Ex.  xxxii.  25-29).  Subsequently 
(Num.  iii.  5-10,  40-51),  the  Levites  were  taken 
as  a  substitute  for  all  the  first-born  Israelites 
(who,  under  the  patriarchal  system,  would  have 
been  their  priests,  and  who  had  been  spared  iu 
the  slaughter  of  the  Egyptian  first-born)  to  mi- 
nister to  the  chosen  priestly  family.  Of  these 
nothing  is  said  iu  this  book,  except  t lie  modifica- 
tion in  their  favor  of  the  law  concerning  the  sale 
of  houses  in  xxv.  32-34)  (see  Com.).  They  may 
therefore  be  here  wholly  passed  by  with  the 
simple  mention  that  they  never  had  sacerdotal 
functions,  and  were  not  therefore  a  part  of  the 
sacerdotal  class.  It  is,  perhaps,  for  the  purpose 
of  making  this  distinction  emphatically  that  no 
mention  is  made  of  them  in  this  book  where  it 
might  otherwise  have  been  expected.  As.  how- 
ever, they  constituted  the  tribe  from  which  the 
priests  were  taken,  the  latter  are  often  called  by 
their  name,  and  thus  we  frequently  meet  with 
the  expression  in  the  later  books,  "the  priests, 
the  Levites,"  or  even  with  "Levites"  alone, 
meaning  Levites,  nar'  h^oxtjv,  or  priests. 

But  while  there  was  an  evident  necessity  that 
a  much  smaller  body  than  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi 
should  be  taken  for  priests;  and  while  Aaron, 
the  elder  brother,  and  appointed  as  the  "pro- 
phet" of  Moses  (Ex.  iv.  14—17),  and  associated 
with  him  in  the  whole  deliverance  of  the  people 
from  Egypt,  was  evidently  a  most  suitable  per- 
son for  the  office,  the  law  that  I  he  office  should 
be  hereditary  must  rest  on  other  grounds.  If 
we  seek  for  these  in  any  thing  beyond  the  sim- 
ple Divine  good-pleasure,  we  should  readily  fiud 
them  in  the  general  fact  of  the  whole  Mosaic 
system  being  founded  upon  the  principle  of  heir- 
ship leading  on  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  Messianic 
promise  ;  and  in  the  more  special  one  that  it  was 
by  this  means  the  priesthood  was  in  the  main 
kept  true  to  God  during  long  periods  of  Israel's 
apostasy  and  sin. 

It  is  to  be  carefully  observed  that  this  heredi- 
tary office  did  not  make  of  the  priests  a  caste;  in 
all  things  not  immediately  connected  with  the 
discharge  of  their  functions,  they  were  fellow- 
citizens  with  the  other  Israelites,  subject  to  the 
same  laws,  bound  by  the  same  duties,  and  ame- 
nable to  the  same  penalties.  When  not  engaged 
in  official  duty,  they  wore  the  same  dress,  and 
might  follow  the  same  vocations  as  their  fellow- 
citizens.  They  were  only  exempt  from  the  pay- 
ment of  tithes  because  themselves  supported  by 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  LEVITICAL  PRIESTHOOD. 


67 


them.  In  all  this  is  manifest  a  striking  con- 
trast, not  only  with  heathen  priesthoods  of  an- 
tiquity, but  also  with  the  hierarchy  of  the  Me- 
dieval Christian  Church. 

The  especial  function  of  the  priesthood  was 
to  come  near  to  God  (vii.  35;  x.  3;  xxi.  17; 
Num.  xvi.  5,  etc.).  They  were  to  stand  in  the 
vast  gap  between  a  sinful  people  and  a  holy 
God,  themselves  of  the  former,  yet  especially 
sanctified  to  approach  the  latter.  "  Hence  their 
chief  characteristic  must  be  holiness,  since  they 
were  elected  to  be  perpetually  near  the  Holy 
One  and  to  serve  Him  (Num.  xvi.  5)  ;  they  were 
singled  out  from  the  rest  of  their  brethren  '  to 
be  sanctified  as  most  holy.'  To  hallow  and  to 
install  as  priests  are  used  as  correlative  terms 
(Ex.  xxix.  33;  comp.  vers.  1,  44:  xxviii.  41; 
xl.  13).  By  neglecting  what  contributes  to  their 
sanctity  they  profane  the  holiness  of  God  (Lev. 
xxi.  6-8) ;  and  the  high-priest  is  himself  the 
'Holy  One  of  the  Lord'  (Ps.  cvi.  16)."  Kalisch. 
They  sustained  a  distinct  mediatorial  character 
between  God  and  His  people.  This  appears  in 
every  part  of  the  law  concerning  them.  The 
gollen  plate  inscribed  "holiness  to  the  Lord," 
which  the  high-priest  wore  upon  his  brow,  ex- 
pressly meant,  that  he  should  "bear  the  iniquity 
of  the  holy  things  which  the  children  of  [arael 
shall  hallow"  (Ex.  xxviii  38);  and  the  flesh  of 
the  sin  offerings  was  given  to  the  priests  "  to 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  congregation,  to  make 
atonement  for  them  before  the  Lord"  (Lev.  x. 
17).  Of  course  this  could  be  done  by  human 
priests  only  symbolically,  as  they  were  types  of 
the  great  High  Priest  to  come ;  and  His  all- 
sufficient  sacrifice  having  once  been  offered, 
there  could  be  thereafter  no  other  priesthood  in 
this  relation  to  the  people,  or  discharging  this 
mediatorial  function.  The  Christian  ministry 
finds  its  analogy,  not  in  the  priests,  but  in  the 
prophets  of  the  old  dispensation,  although  even 
here  the  likeness  is  very  imperfect.  Still,  while 
the  priests  were  required  to  preserve  and  teach 
the  written  law.  it  was  left  to  the  prophets  to 
unfold  its  spiritual  meaning,  and  to  urge  regard 
to  it  by  argument  and  exhortation.  It  is  a 
striking  fact  that  the  Greek  word  for  priest, 
iepei'c,  and  its  derivatives  in  the  New  Testament, 
while  frequently  applied  to  the  priests  of  the 
old  covenant  aud  to  Christ  Himself,  their  Anti- 
type, are  never  used  for  any  office  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  except  for  the  general  priesthood 
of  the  whole  body  of  believers ;  TTf>o<ptjrnc=pro- 
phet,  however,  aud  its  cognates  are  thus  used 
with  great  frequency.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind 
that  priest,  in  the  Levitical  sense  of  the  word, 
and  sacrifice  are  correlative  terms;  sacrifice 
pre-supposes  a  priest  to  offer  it,  and  a  priest 
must  needs  have  "somewhat  also  to  offer" 
(Heb.  viii.  3).  From  these  points  flow  all  the 
duties  of  the  priests,  and  in  view  of  these  their 
qualifications,  and  the  other  laws  concerning 
them  are  fixed 

The  first  and  chiefe«t  of  all  their  duties  was 
the  offering  of  sacrifice,  as  this  was  the  especial 
instrumentality  by  which  men  sought  to  draw 
near  to  God.  No  sacrifice  could  be  offered  with- 
out the  intervention  of  the  appointed  priest; 
for  the  sacrifices  having  no  virtue  in  themselves, 
and  deriving  their  value  from  the  Divine  ap- 


pointment, must  necessarily  be  presented  in  the 
way  and  by  the  persons  whom  God  had  author- 
ized. Hence  it  is  that  in  the  ritual  of  the  sacri- 
fices an  emphasis  is  always  placed  upon  the 
declaration  that  the  priests  "shall  make  atone- 
ment." The  apparent  exceptions  to  this,  in  the 
case  of  Samuel  and  Elijah,  are  really  but  illus- 
trations of  the  principle,  they  being  prophets 
directly  charged  from  on  high  to  do  this  very 
thing.  In  this,  including  the  burning  of  in- 
cense, the  priests  were  undoubtedly  typical  of 
the  one  true  High  Priest  and  Mediator.  They 
stood,  as  far  as  was  possible  for  man,  between 
God  and  the  people,  and  by  their  acts  were  the 
people  made — at  least  symbolically — holy,  and 
brought  near  to  God.  The  acts  of  sacrifice 
which  were  essential,  and  which  therefore  could 
only  be  performed  by  the  priests,  were  the 
sprinkling  or  other  treatment  of  the  blood,  and 
the  burning  of  such  parts  as  were  to  be  con- 
sumed upon  the  altar.  In  the  sin  aud  trespass 
offerings,  as  well  as  in  the  oblations,  which  must 
be  wholly  consecrated  to  God.  they  were  to  con- 
sume the  parts  which  were  not  burned. 

From  this  essential  duty  naturally  were  de- 
rived a  variety  of  others.  To  the  priests  be- 
longed the  care  of  the  sanctuary  and  its  sacred 
utensils,  the  preservation  of  the  fire  on  the 
brazen  altar,  the  burning  of  incense  on  the 
golden  altar,  the  dressing  and  lighting  of  the 
lamps  of  the  golden  candlestick,  the  charge  of 
the  shew-bread,  and  other  like  duties.  They 
were  necessarily  concerned  in  all  those  multitu- 
dinous acts  of  the  Israelites  which  were  con- 
nected with  sacrifices,  such  as  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  Nazarite  vow,  the  ordeal  of  jealousy, 
the  expiation  of  an  unknown  murder,  the  deter- 
mination of  the  unclean  and  of  the  cleansed  lep- 
rous persons,  garments  and  houses ;  the  regula- 
tion of  the  calendar;  the  valuation  of  devoted 
property  which  was  to  be  redeemed ;  these  and 
a  multitude  of  other  duties  followed  naturally 
from  their  priestly  office.  They  were  also  to 
blow  the  silver  trumpets  on  the  various  occa- 
sions of  their  use,  and  in  connection  with  this 
to  exhort  the  soldiers  about  to  engage  in  battle 
to  boldness,  because  they  went  to  fight  under 
the  Lord.  They  were  also,  from  their  own 
familiarity  with  the  law,  appropriately  appointed 
as  the  religious  teachers  of  the  peopie.  From 
their  priestly  office  they  were  charged  to  bless 
the  people  in  the  name  of  God;  and  from  their 
privilege  of  consulting  God  especially  through 
the  Urim  and  Thummim,  they  were  made  arbi- 
ters in  disputes  of  importance :  "by  their  word 
shall  every  controversy  and  every  violence  be 
tried"  (Deut.  xxi.  5).  All  these  secondary  du- 
ties flowed  from  their  primary  one  in  connection 
with  the  sacrifices.  Hence  the  influence  and 
importance  of  the  priests  in  the  Hebrew  com- 
monwealth varied  greatly  with  the  religious 
earnestness  and  activity  of  the  nation.  Nega- 
tively, it  is  important  to  note  that  the  priests 
did  not,  in  any  considerable  degree,  discharge 
towards  the  people  the  office  of  the  Christian 
pastor,  the  spiritual  guide,  comforter  and  assist- 
ant of  his  flock.  It  is  possible  that  if  the  people 
and  the  priests  themselves  had  been  prepared 
for  it,  something  more  of  this  relation  might 
have  resulted  from  the  provisions  of  the  law. 


68 


LEVITICUS. 


Still,  they  were  not  individually  the  priests  of 
particular  communities;  but  rather,  as  a  body, 
the  priests  of  the  whole  nation.  From  this  it 
resulted  that  their  connectiou  with  the  people 
was  little  more  than  simply  official  and  ministe- 
rial. In  so  far  as  the  need  of  the  pastor  was 
met  at  all  under  the  old  dispensation,  as  already 
said,  it  was  by  the  prophet  rather  than  by  the 
priests. 

The  same  thing  is  also  true  of  their  revenue. 
This  was  chiefly  derived  from  the  "second 
tithe,"  or  the  tenth  paid  to  them  by  the  Levites 
from  the  tithes  received  by  them  from  the  peo- 
ple. Tithes  were  stringently  commanded;  but 
no  power  was  lodged  with  any  one  for  their 
compulsory  collectiou.  Their  payment  was  left 
absolutely  to  the  conscientious  obedience  of  the 
people.  The  priests'  support  was  supplemented 
by  their  share  of  the  sacrifices,  first-fruits,  and 
other  offerings  of  the  people.  Very  ample  pro- 
vision appears  to  be  made  for  them  in  the  law ; 
the  Levites,  who  were  much  less  than  a  tenth  of 
the  people,  were  to  receive  the  tenth  of  all  their 
increase ;  and  the  priests,  who  appear  to  have 
numbered  still  much  less  than  the  tenth  of  the 
Levites,  were  to  receive  the  tenth  of  the  income 
paid  to  them.  Practically,  during  the  far  greater 
part  of  the  Hebrew  history,  their  support  ap- 
pears to  have  been  precarious  and  insufficient, 
and  we  know  that  large  numbers  of  them  de- 
clined to  return  from  the  captivity  of  Babylon, 
and  many  of  the  descendants  of  those  who  did 
return  did  not  exercise  their  priestly  office  or 
claim  their  priestly  privileges. 

The  qualifications  for  the  priesthood  were 
first,  Aaronic  descent;  to  secure  this  genealogi- 
cal registers  were  kept  with  great  care  (2  Chrou. 
xxxi.  16,  17,  etc.),  and  any  one  who  could  not 
find  his  descent  upon  them  was  not  allowed  to 
minister  in  the  priest's  office  or  to  receive  its 
emoluments  (Ezra  ii.  62  ;  Neh.  vii.  64).  Secondly, 
they  must  be  perfect  physically,  free  from  any 
bodily  defect  or  injury;  otherwise,  they  might 
eat  of  the  priests'  portion,  and  receive  his  tithe, 
but  they  were  forbidden  to  approach  the  altar, 
or  enter  the  sanctuary  (Lev.  xxi.  17-23).  Fur- 
ther, during  the  time  of  their  ministrations, 
they  must  be  entirely  free  from  any  form  of 
legal  uncleanness  (xxii.  1-7),  and  must  practice 
frequent  ablutions,  especially  on  entering  the 
sacred  precincts  (viii.  6;  Ex.  xl.  30-32),  and 
they  must  carefully  abstain  from  wine  and  strong 
drink  (ch.  x.  8-10);  at  all  times  they  must 
maintain  an  especial  symbolic  purity,  and  particu- 
larly must  never  be  defiled  by  the  contact  of  a 
dead  body,  except  in  the  case  of  the  very  near- 
est relatives  (xxi.  2-4),  even  this  exception 
being  denied  to  the  high-priest  (ib.  10-12).  No 
limit  of  age  either  for  the  beginning  or  the  end 
of  their  service  is  fixed  in  the  law;  but  in  the 
absence  of  such  limitation,  the  age  appointed 
for  the  Levites  would  probably  have  been  gene- 
rally regarded  as  fitting.  In  later  times  there 
was  great  laxity  in  this  respect,  and  Aristobulus 
was  appointed  high-priest  by  Herod  the  Great 
when  only  seventeen.  In  addition  to  these  out- 
ward qualifications,  exemplary  holiness  of  life 
is  everywhere  required  of  the  priests,  and  even 
in  their  families,  violations  of  virtue  were  visited 
with  more  severity  thau  among  others  (xxi.  9). 


In  marriage  the  priests  generally  were  only 
restricted  in  their  choice  to  virgins  or  widows 
of  any  of  the  tribes  of  their  nation  (xxi.  7); 
later,  marriage  within  the  Aaronic  family  seems 
to  have  been  preferred,  and  by  the  prophet 
Ezekiel  (xliv.  22)  the  marriage  with  widows 
(except  of  priests)  was  forbidden  them. 

They  were  originally  inducted  into  their  office 
by  a  solemn  consecration,  and  were  sprinkled 
with  the  sacrificial  blood  and  the  holy  anointing 
oil  (ch.  ix.);  but,  except  for  the  high-priest, 
this  one  consecration  sufficed  for  all  their  de- 
scendants, and  was  not  repeated. 

While  on  duty  in  the  sanctuary  they  were 
arrayed  in  robes  of  linen  which  might  never 
pass  beyond  the  sacred  precincts ;  and  they 
must  minister  at  the  altar  unshod. 

In  the  small  number  of  priests  at  first,  it  was 
probably  necessary  that  all  of  them  should  be 
constantly  on  duty;  but  when  in  later  times 
they  had  greatly  multiplied,  they  were  divided 
by  David  into  twenty-four  courses,  each  with  a 
chief  at  its  head,  who  should  minister  in  turn 
(1  Chron.  xxiv.  3,  4).  This  arrangement  was 
maintained  ever  after,  although  on  the  return 
from  the  captivity,  some  of  the  courses  were 
wanting  from  the  returning  exiles  (Neh.  xii,  1- 
7;  12-21). 

The  whole  order  of  the  priests  was  concen- 
trated, so  to  speak,  in  the  high-priest.  His  office 
was  also  hereditary,  but  not  with  the  same 
strictness.  We  find  in  the  time  of  Eli  that  the 
high  priesthood  had  passed  to  the  house  of 
Ithamar  (Aaron's  younger  son),  and  from  his 
descendants  it  was  again  by  divine  direction 
transferred  back  to  the  elder  branch.  The  du- 
ties and  responsibilities  of  the  high-priest  were 
far  more  solemn  than  that  of  the  ordinary  priests. 
"Pity  and  sympathy  also,  according  to  the  Ep. 
to  the  Hebr.,  enter  into  the  idea  of  the  high- 
priest."  Lange.  There  could  be  only  one  high- 
priest  at  a  time,  although  a  second,  in  some  de- 
gree at  least,  seems  to  have  been  permitted 
during  that  abnormal  period  during  the  reign 
of  David  when  the  ark  and  the  tabernacle  were 
separated.  The  high-priest  was  restricted  in 
marriage  to  a  Hebrew  virgin;  his  official  robes 
were  of  the  utmost  splendor,  and  on  his  breast 
he  wore  the  precious  stones  on  which  were  en- 
graved the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel, 
while  on  the  golden  plate  on  his  forehead  was 
inscribed  "  holiness  unto  the  Lord  ;"  he  was 
originally  consecrated  by  a  more  ample  anoint- 
ing than  his  brethren,  and  this  was  repeated  for 
each  of  his  successors,  so  that  he  is  described 
as  having  "  the  crown  of  the  anointing  oil  of  his 
God  upon  him  "  (xxi.  12),  and,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  often  designated  simply  as  "  the  anointed 
priest;"  he  must  have  succeeded  to  his  office  at 
whatever  age  his  predecessor  died  or  became 
incapacitated,  and  continued  in  it  to  the  end  of 
his  own  life,  which  formed  a  civil  epoch  (Num. 
xxxv.  28,  32);  no  especial  provision  is  made  in 
the  law  for  his  support,  and  history  shows  that 
it  was  unnecessary  to  do  so,  as  he  was  always 
amply  provided  for;  the  high-priest  was  forbid- 
den the  contact  with  the  dead  and  the  customary 
marks  of  sorrow  even  in  those  few  cases  which 
were  permitted  to  other  priests  (xxi.  10-12),  and 
that  on  the  express  ground  of  the  peculiar  com- 


CHAP.  VIII.  1-36. 


69 


pleteness  of  bis  consecration.  But  his  chief 
distinction  lay  in  his  being  the  embodiment,  as 
it  were,  of  the  whole  theocracy,  and  the  media- 
tor between  God  and  the  whole  people.  This 
was  signified  by  manifold  symbols  on  his  robes  ; 
it  was  shown  by  his  duty  of  offering  the  sin 
offering  for  himself  and  for  the  whole  people 
(the  same  victim  being  required  for  each);  and 
especially  by  his  most  solemn  duties  on  the 
great  day  of  Atonement  (ch.  xvi.).  From  his 
position  and  religious  duties  necessarily  flowed 
many  others,  as  in  the  case  of  the  ordinary 
priests,  only  that  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other 


those  of  the  high-priest  were  far  higher  and 
more  important.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
he  is  singled  out  not  only  as  the  representative 
of  the  whole  priestly  system,  but  as  peculiarly 
the  type  of  Christ,  the  one  great  High-Priest, 
Who  alone  could  make  effectual  atonement,  once 
for  all,  for  the  sins  of  all  people.  A  "  second 
priest,"  or  vice  high-priest,  is  mentioned  Jer. 
Hi.  24,  and  such  an  office  is  recognized  by  the 
later  Jews.  Literature:  Kalisch,  Preliminary 
Essay  on  Lev.  VIII.,  and  many  of  the  works 
already  mentioned  under  Sacrifices.  Kceper, 
Das  Priesterthum  des  Alien    Bundes,  Berlin,  1865. 


FIRST    SECTION. 

The  Consecration  of  the  Priests. 

Chap.  VIII.  1-36. 

1,  2    And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Take  Aaron  and  his  sons  'with  him, 
and  the  garments,  and  the  anointing  oil,  and  a  [the1]  bullock  for  the  sin-offering, 

3  and  [the1]  two  rams,  and  a  [the1]  basket  of  unleavened  bread  :  and  gather  thou  all 
the  congregation  together  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congre- 

4  gation.     And  Moses  did  as  the  Lord  commanded  him  ;  and  the  assembly  [con- 
gregation2] was  gathered  together  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the] 

5  congregation.     And  Moses  said  unto  the  congregation,  This  is  the  thing  which  the 
Lord  commanded  to  be  done. 

6  And  Moses  brought  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  washed  [bathed3]  them  with  water. 

7  And  he  put  upon  him  the  coat,  and  girded  him  with  the  girdle,  and  clothed  him 
with  the  robe,  and  put  the  ephod  upon  him,  and  he  girded  him  with  the  curious 

8  [cwious*]  girdle  of  the  ephod,  and  bound  it  unto  him  therewith.     And  he  put  the 
breastplate  upon  him  :  also  he  pub  in  the  breastplate  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim. 

9  And  he  put  the  mitre  upon  his  head  ;  also  upon  the  mitre,  even  upon  his  forefront, 
did  he  put  [and  upon  the  mitre   upon  his  forehead  did  he  put5]  the  golden  plate, 

10  the  holy  crown  ;  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses.     And  Moses  took  the  anointing 
oil,  and  anointed  the   tabernacle  [dwelling-place6]  and  all   that  was  therein,  and 

11  sanctified  them.'     And  he  sprinkled  thereof  upon  the  altar  seven  times,  and  an- 
ointed the  altar  and  all  his  vessels,  both  the  laver  and  his  foot,  to  sanctify  them. 

12  And  he  poured  of8  the  anointing  oil  upon  Aaron's  head,  and  anointed  him,  to  sanc- 

13  tify  him.     And  Moses  brought  Aaron's  sons,  and  put  coats  upon  them,  and  girded 


TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Vcr.  2.  The  Heb.  has  the  article  in  all  those  cases,  and  it  should  be  retained  as  referring  to  the  commands  given  in 
Ex.  xxix. 

2  Ver.  4.  rniTt    The  word  being  precisely  the  same  as  in  ver.  3,  should  certainly  have  the  same  translation.    The 

T  ■•  T 
Yulg.  and  Syr.  prefix  all,  as  in  ver.  3. 

3  Ver.  6.  Vrp'V     See  Textual  Note  =»  on  xiv.  S. 

*  Ver.  7.  2tyn  means  simply  girdle,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  Hob.  answering  to  curious,  yet  as  this  word  is  used 

only  of  the  girdle  of  the  Ephod.  while  there  are  several  other  words  for  the  ordinary  girdle,  and  as  the  A.  V.  has  uniformly 
rendered  it  curimu  girdle,  it  may  be  well  to  retain  the  adjective  as  the  readiest  way  of  marking  in  English  the  peculiarity 
of  the  girdle.     It  should,  however,  be  in  italics. 

6  Ver.  9.  The  A.  V.  is  unnecessarily  complicated.    For  the  second  Di£f,l  the  Sam.  reads  TjTI. 

•  Ver.  10.  jaiyrj.     See  Textual  Note  8  on  xv.  31. 

1  Ver.  10.  Three  MSS.,  followed  by  the  LXX.,  read  it  in  the  singular. 
8  Ver.  12.  One  MS.,  followed  by  the  Vulg.,  omits  the  partitive  Q. 


70  LEVITICUS. 


them  with  girdles  [a  girdle9],  and  put  [bound]  bonnets  upon  them  ;  as  the  Lord 
commanded  Moses. 

14  And  he  brought  the  bullock  for  the  sin  offering :  and  Aaron  and  his  sons  laid10 

15  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  bullock  for  the  sin  offering.  And  he  slew  it ; 
and  Moses  took  the  blood,  and  put  it  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar  round  about  with 
his  finger,  and  purified  the  altar,  and  poured  the  blood  at  the  bottom  of  the  altar, 

16  and  sanctified  it,  to  make  reconciliation  upon  it  [to  atone  for  it11].  And  he  took 
all  the  fat  that  was  upou  the  inwards,  and  the  caul  above  the  liver,  and  the  two 

17  kidneys,  and  their  fat,  and  Moses  burnt  it12  upon  the  altar.  But  the  bullock,  and 
his  hide,  his  flesh,  and  his  dung,  he  burnt  with  fire  without  the  camp  ;  as  the  Lord 

18  commanded  Moses.     And  he  brought13  the  ram  for  the  burnt  offering  :  and  Aaron 

19  and  his  sons  laid  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  ram.     Aud  he  killed  it;  and 

20  Moses  sprinkled  the  blood  upon  the  altar  round  about.     And  he  cut  the  ram  into 

21  pieces ;  and  Moses  burnt  the  head,  and  the  pieces,  and  the  fat.  And  he  washed 
the  inwards  and  the  legs  in  water  ;  and  Moses  burnt  the  whole  ram  upon  the  altar : 
it14  was  a  burnt  sacrifice  for  a  sweet  savour,  and  [omit  and]  an  offering  made  by  fire 

22  unto  the  Lord  ;  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses.  And  he  brought  the  other  ram, 
the  ram  of  consecration  :  and  Aaron  and  his  sons  laid  their  hands  upon  the  head 

23  of  the  ram.  And  he  slew  it;  and  Moses  took  of  the  blood  of  it,  and  put  it  upon 
the  tip  of  Aaron's  right  ear,  and  upon  the  thumb  of  his  right  hand,  aud  upon  the 

24  great  toe  of  his  right  foot.  And  he15  brought  Aaron's  sons,  and  Moses  put  of  the 
blood  upon  the  tip  of  their  right  ear,  and  upon  the  thumbs  [thumb16]  of  their  right 
hands,  aud  upon  the  great  toes  [toe16]  of  their  right  feet :  and  Moses  sprinkled  the 

25  blood  upon  the  altar  round  about.  And  he  took  the  fat,  and  the  rump  [the  fat 
tail1']  and  all  the  fat  that  teas  upon  the  inwards,  and  the  caul  above  the  liver,  and 

26  the  two  kidneys,  and  their  fat,  and  the  right  shoulder  [leg18]  :  and  out  of  the  basket 
of  unleavened  bread,19  that  was  before  the  Lord,  he  took  one  unleavened  cake,  and 
a  cake  of  oiled  bread,  and  one  wafer,  and  put  them  on  the  fat,  and  upon  the  right 

27  shoulder  [leg19]  :  and  he  put  all  upon  Aaron's  hands,  and  upon  his  sons'  hands, 

28  and  waved  them  for  a  wave  offering  before  the  Lord.  And  Moses  took  them  from 
off  their  hands,  and  burnt  theni®  on  the  altar  upon  the  burut  offering :  they  were 
consecrations  for  a  sweet  savour :  it21  is  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord. 

29  And  Moses  took  the  breast,  and  waved  it  for  a  wave  offering  before  the  Lord  :  for 
of  the  ram  of  consecration  it  was  Moses'  part ;  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses. 

30  And  Moses  took  of  the  anointing  oil,  and  of  the  blood  which  vm  upon  the  altar, 
and  sprinkled  it  upon  Aaron,  and  upou  his  garments,  and  upon  his  sons,  and  upon 
his  sons'  garments  with  him  ;  and  sanctified  Aaron,  and  his  garments,  aud  his  sons, 
and  his  sons'  garments  with  him. 

31  And  Moses  said  unto  Aaron  and  to  his  sons,  Boil  the  flesh  at  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation22 :  and  there  eat  with  the  bread  that  is  in 
the  basket  of  consecrations,  as  I  [am23]   commanded,  saying,  Aaron  and  his  sons 

32  shall  eat  it.     And  that  which  remaineth  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  bread  shall  ye  burn 

•  Ver.  13.  B33N  in  tho  sing.  (The  ancient  versions,  however,  have  the  plural).  An  entirely  different  word  from 
ydU  of  ver.  7. 

'»  Ver.  14.  The  Heh.  verb  TOD'l  is  in  the  sing.  In  the  corresponding  clause  in  ver.  IS  it  is  plural,  and  so  it  is  made 
here  alsn  by  the  Sam.  and  Syr. 

»  Ver.  15.  1,17J7    "1331?.    It  is  better  here,  as  in  vi.  30  (23),  and  xvi.  20,  to  retain  the  almost  universal  rendering  of 

"133  in  the  A.  V.    These  three  places  are  the  only  exceptions  in  Ex.,  Lev.,  or  Num.    The  Bense  is  clearly  for  it,  rather 

than  upon  it,  and  it  is  so  rendered  in  the  corresponding  passage.  Ex.  xxix.  30,  comp.  37. 
I2  Ver.  16.  The  missing  pronoun  is  supplied  in  one  MS.  aud  the  Arab. 
«  Ver.  IS.  For  nip'l  tho  Sam.  reads  tjrj'V 

M  Ver.  21.  Five  MSS.,  the  Svr.  and  Vulg.,  omit  tho  pronoun. 

is  Ver.  24.  The  I.XX.  says,  Muses  brought. 

i«  Ver.  24.  The  singular,  which  is  the  Ueb.  form,  is  quite  as  accurate  and  expressive. 

1?  Ver.  25.  See  Text.  Note  '  on  iii.  0. 

18  Ver.  25.  See  Text.  Note  '■"  on  vii.  32. 

19  Ver.  20.  The  LXX.  here  reads  airo  too  Kavov  Trjs  TeAeiwo-eci>?. 

20  Ver.  28.  The  pronoun  is  supplied  by  one  MS.,  the  l.XX.,  and  the  Syr. 

21  Ver.  2S.  This  pronoun  is  wanting  in  two  MSS.,  tho  Vulg.  and  Arab. 

22  Ver.  31.  Tho  Sam.  and  LXX.  add  ev  tottw  a-yt'o). 

"  Ver.  31.  The  A.  V.  follows  tho  Masoretic  punctuation  'JVWi  but  the  LXX.,  Vulg.  aud  Syr.,  that  of  ver.  35  WW. 


CHAP.  VIII.  1-36. 


71 


33  with  fire.  And  ye  shall  not  go  out  of  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the] 
congregation  in  seven  days,  until  the  days  of  your  consecration  be  at  an  end :  for 

34  seven  days  shall  he  consecrate  you.     As  he  hath  done  this  day,  so  the  Lord  hath 

35  commanded  to  do,  to  make  an  atonement  for  you.  Therefore  shall  ye  abide  at  the 
door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]   congregation   day  and  night  seven  day3, 

36  and  keep  the  charge  of  the  Lord,  that  ye  die  not :  for  so  I  am  commanded.  So 
Aaron  and  his  sons  did  all  things  which  the  Lord  commanded  by  the  hand  of 
Moses. 


EXEQETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

In  the  chapters  of  this  section  we  have  the 
only  prolonged  narrative  in  Leviticus,  in  fact 
the  only  historical  matter  at  all  except  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  blasphemer  in  xxiv.  10-23. 

Ver.  1.  The  LORD  spake. — A  special  com- 
mand to  carry  out  now  the  command  already 
given  minutely  in  Ex.  xxviii.,  xxix.,  and  xl. 

Vers.  2-5  contain  the  preliminary  arrange- 
ments. Moses  takes  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and 
the  various  things  previously  provided  for  their 
consecration,  and  brings  them  into  the  court  of 
the  tabernacle.  The  four  sons  of  Aaron  were 
brought,  and  the  language  would  also  include 
his  grandsons,  if  there  were  any  at  this  time  of 
Buitable  age.  The  fact,  however,  that  Eleazar 
entered  the  promised  land,  would  make  him  less 
than  twenty-one  at  this  time,  and  therefore  too 
young  to  have  sons  of  sufficient  age,  and  no  sons 
of  Nadab  and  Abihu  are  ever  anywhere  men- 
tioned. The  people  were  also  gathered  about 
the  wide  opening  of  the  court,  probably  repre- 
sented by  their  elders  in  the  nearest  places,  and 
the  mass  of  the  men  generally  standing  upon  the 
surrounding  heights  which  overlooked  the  taber- 
nacle. Lange:  "This  is  the  ordinance:  first, 
the  persons;  then  the  garments  as  symbols  of 
the  office:  the  anointing  oil,  the  symbol  of  the 
Spirit ;  the  bullock  for  the  siu  offering,  the  sym- 
bol of  the  priest  favored  with  the  entrusted 
atonement,  aud  yet  needing  favor  ;  the  ram  for 
the  burnt  offering,  the  symbol  of  the  sacrificial 
employment  ;  the  ram  for  the  sacrifice  of  conse- 
cration, the  symbol  of  the  priestly  emoluments 
in  true  sacrifices  of  consecration  ;  and  the  basket 
of  unleavened  bread,  the  symbol  of  life's  enjoy- 
ments of  the  priests,  sanctified  in  every  form  by 
the  oil  of  the  Spirit." 

Ver.  2.  The  basket,  according  to  Ex.  xxix.  2, 
3,  23,  contained  three  kinds  of  bread  all  un- 
leavened, the  loaf,  the  oil  bread,  and  the  wafer 
anointed  with  oil. 

Vers.  3,  4.  The  consecration  was  thus  public, 
not  only  that  Aaron  might  not  seem  "to  take 
this  honor  unto  himself;"  but  also  that  by  their 
presence,  the  people  might  be  assenting  to  the 
consecration  of  him  who  was  to  minister  among 
them  and  for  them. 

Vers.  6-13.  The  washing,  anointing,  and  in- 
vestiture. 

Ver.  6.  And  bathed  them  with  water. — 
Not  merely  their  hands  and  their  feet,  which 
Moses  must  have  already  done  for  himself,  and 
which  was  always  done  by  every  priest  who  en- 
tered the  tabernacle,  or  who  approached  the 
altar  (Ex.  xl.  31,  32)  ;  but  doubtless  an  ablu- 
tion of  the  whole  body  as  seems  to  be  intended 
in  Ex.  xxix.  4,  and  as  was  practised  on  the  great 


day  of  atonement  (ch.  xvi.  4).  This  washing 
was  obviously  symbolical  of  the  purity  required 
in  those  who  draw  near  to  God,  and  is  applied 
spiritually  to  the  whole  body  of  Christians, 
"  made  priests  unto  God  "  in  fieb.  x.  22.  With 
this  comp.  Christ's  receiving  of  baptism  (Matt, 
iii.  13-15)  before  entering  upon  His  public  min- 
istry. 

Vers.  7-9.  The  robing  of  Aaron  comes  first, 
then  the  sanctification  of  the  tabernacle  and  all 
it.  contained,  especially  of  the  altar,  then  the 
anointing  of  Aaron,  and  finally  the  robing  of  his 
sons.  Neither  here  nor  in  Ex.  xxix.  5  is  there 
any  mention  of  the  "  linen  breeches  "  of  Ex. 
xxviii.  42;  xxxix.28  probably  because  these  were 
simply  "  to  C')ver  their  nakedness,"  and  were 
not  considered  a  part  of  the  official  costume. 
As  Kalisch  suggests,  Aaron  and  his  sons  proba- 
bly put  them  on  themselves  immediately  after 
their  ablution.  On  the  remaining  articles  of 
apparel  see  Ex.  xxviii.  Briefly,  the  coat  was 
the  long  tunic  of  fine  linen  worn  next  the  skin. 
According  to  Josephus  (Ant.  III.  7,  \  2),  it 
reached  to  the  feet,  and  was  fastened  closely  to 
the  arms.  It  was  to  be  "embroidered"  (Ex. 
xxviii.  39),  i.  e.,  woven,  all  of  the  same  material 
and  color,  in  diaper  work.  From  Ex.  xxviii.  40, 
41 ;  xxxix.  27,  this  garment  appears  to  have 
been  the  same  for  the  high-priest  and  the  com- 
mon priests.  The  girdle  next  mentioned  is  not 
the  "curious  girdle"  of  the  Ephod  (3iyn),  but 
the  033X  described  by  Josephus  (loc.  cit.)  as  a 
long  sash  of  very  loosely  woven  linen,  embroi- 
dered  with  flowers  of  scarlet,  and  purple,  and 
blue,  which  was  wound  several  times  around  the 
body  and  tied,  the  ends  hanging  down  to  the 
ankles  ordinarily,  but  thrown  over  the  shoulder 
when  the  priest  was  engaged  in  active  duty. — 
The  robe  (Ex.  xxviii.  31-35),  wholly  of  blue, 
was  woven  without  seam,  apparently  without 
sleeves,  with  a  hole  whereby  it  was  put  over  the 
bead.  It  is  supposed  to  have  reached  a  little 
below  the  knees,  and  to  have  been  visible  below, 
and  also  a  little  above,  the  Ephod.  The  hem  at 
the  bottom  was  ornamented  witli  "  pomegranates, 
blue,  and  purple,  and  scarlet,"  with  golden  bells 
between  them,  which  should  sound  as  the  high- 
priest  went  in  and  out  of  the  holy  place.  Over 
this  was  the  Ephod  (Ex.  xxviii.  6,  7:  xxxix. 
2-4),  a  vestment  whose  construction  is  imper- 
fectly understood.  The  word  etymologically, 
means  simply  a  "vestment,"  and  a  simple  "lin- 
en Ephod"  was  worn  by  the  common  priests  (1 
Sam.  xxii.  18),  as  well  as  by  others  engaged  in 
religious  services  (1  Sam.  ii.  18;  2  Sam.  vi.  14; 
1  Chr.  xv.  27).  The  "vestment"  or  Ephod  of 
the  high-priest  here  spoken  of,  however,  was  a 
very  different  and  much  more  gorgeous  affair. 

Its  material  was  B^  =fine  linen  (of  which  also 


72 


LEVITICUS. 


the  tunic  mentioned  above  was  made),  while  that 
of  the  other  Epbods  was  "13  or  common  linen  of 
which  the  "  linen  breeches  "  were  made.  (The 
latter  word,  however,  as  the  more  general,  is 
sometimes  used  for  both,  Lev.  vi.  10  (3) ;  xvi. 
4,  23,  32).  The  Ephod  of  the  high-priest  ap- 
pears to  have  been  made  in  two  parts,  one  for 
the  back  and  one  for  the  breast,  joined  at  the 
shoulders  by  two  onyx  stones  set  in  gold,  upon 
which  were  engraved  the  names  of  the  tribes  of 
Israel.  To  these  stones  were  attached  chains  of 
pure  wreathen  gold  for  the  support  of  the  breast- 
plate. According  to  Josephus  (loc.  cit.,  $  5),  it 
had  sleeves  and  a  place  left  open  upon  the  breast 
to  be  covered  by  the  breast-plate.  It  was  woven 
with  gold  thread  and  colors  "  with  cunning 
work,"  and  with  its  attachments  was  one  of  the 
chief  parts  of  the  high-priest's  attire.  Upon  it, 
wrought  of  the  same  costly  and  gorgeous  mate- 
rials, was  the  curious  girdle  of  the  Ephod, 
woven  on  to  one  of  the  parts,  and  passing  round 
the  body,  holding  them  both  together.  On  this 
was  put  the  breast-plate  (Ex.  xxviii.  15-30),  a 
separate  piece  of  cloth  woven  of  tlie  same  mate- 
rials, so  that  when  folded  it  was  "a  span" 
square.  By  gold  rings  it  was  attached  to  the 
chains  from  the  onyx  stones  on  the  shoulder, 
and  by  other  gold  rings  it  was  tied  with  bands 
of  blue  lace  to  corresponding  rings  on  the  Ephod. 
To  this  breast-plate  were  attached  by  settings  of 
gold,  twelve  precious  stones,  on  each  of  which 
was  engraved  the  name  of  one  of  the  tribes  of 
Israel. — Also  he  put  in  the  breast-plate 
the  Urim  and  the  Thummim. — On  these 
words  many  volumes  have  been  written,  and  we 
can  only  here  refer  to  the  note  on  Ex.  xxviii.  30. 
From  the  way  in  which  they  are  spoken  of  both 
there  (comp.  vers.  15-21)  and  here,  they  appear 
to  have  been  something  different  from  the  pre- 
cious stones  before  spoken  of,  and  to  have  been 
placed,  not  on,  but  in  the  breast-plate,  i.  e.,  in 
the  receptacle  formed  by  its  fold,  although  a 
great  variety  of  authorities  might  be  cited  for 
the  opposite  view.  There  is  nowhere  any  direc- 
tion given  for  their  preparation,  and  from  the  use 
of  the  definite  article  with  each  of  them,  it  is 
likely  that  they  were  things  already  known. 
They  were  used  as  a  means  of  ascertaining  the 
will  of  God  (Num.  xxvii.  21;  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6, 
etc.)  ;  but  by  precisely  what  process  is  not 
known,  and  there  are  now  no  means  of  ascer- 
taining. The  many  conjectures  concerning  them 
are  conveniently  arranged  by  Clark  (Speaker's 
Com.)  under  three  heads:  (1)  that  the  Divine 
will  was  manifested  by  some  physical  effect  ad- 
dressed to  the  eye  or  ear  ;  (2)  that  they  were  a 
means  of  calling  into  action  a  prophetic  gift  in 
the  high-priest;  (3)  that  they  were  some  contri- 
vance for  casting  lots.  The  Urim  and  Thum- 
mim were  here  formally  delivered  to  Aaron,  and 
parsed  on  to  his  successors  ;  but  the  last  re- 
corded instance  of  their  use  is  in  the  time  of  Da- 
vid, and  they  seem  to  have  passed  into  disuse  as 
revelations  and  teachings  by  prophets  became 
more  frequent.  It  is  certain  that  they  had  dis- 
appeared, or  their  use  had  been  lost,  after  the 
return  from  the  captivity  (Ezra  ii.  63;  Neh. 
vii.  66). 

And  he  put  the  mitre  upon  his  head. — 
(Ex.  xxviii.  37-39).     The  word  mitre  is  here  used 


in  its  etymological  sense,  of  a  twisted  band  of 
fine  linen  around  the  head,  which  might  now  be 
described  as  a  turban.  The  golden  plate,  the 
holy  crown, — a  plate  of  pure  gold  having  en- 
graved on  it  holiness  to  the  Lord.  This  was 
attached  to  a  "  blue  lace,"  whereby  it  was  fast- 
ened to  the  mitre.  It  was  the  crowning  glory 
of  the  high-priest's  official  dress,  and  its  sym- 
bolism is  fully  expressed  in  the  command  for  its 
preparation  (Ex.  xxviii.  38),  "that  Aaron  may 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  holy  things,  which  the 
children  of  Israel  shall  hallow  in  all  their  holy 
gifts;  and  it  shall  be  always  upon  his  forehead, 
that  they  may  be  accepted  before  the  Lord." 
This  completed  the  investiture  of  Aaron,  and  it 
is  added  as  the  LORD  commanded  Moses, 
both  to  show  that  the  command  had  been  ful- 
filled, and  also  that  only  that  which  was  com- 
manded had  been  done.  In  this  matter  nothing 
was  left  to  human  device;  every  particular  was 
expressly  arranged  by  minute  Divine  directions ; 
for  everything  was  symbolic  and  intended  gra- 
dually to  teach  Israel  spiritual  truths,  which  as 
yet  they  were  only  prepared  to  learn  by  these 
sensible  images. 

Vers.  10-12.  The  anointing  of  the  sacred 
things  and  of  Aaron. 

The  composition  of  the  anointing  oil,  and  the 
careful  restriction  of  its  use  had  been  minutely 
commanded  (Ex.  xxx.  22-33).  The  Rabbis  say 
that  the  art  of  compounding  it  was  lost  after  the 
captivity,  and  hence  from  that  time  its  use  was 
necessarily  discontinued.  The  things  to  be  an- 
ointed had  all  been  made  "after  the  pattern 
shown  in  the  Mount "  (Ex.  xxv.  40  ;  Heb.  ix.  23) 
and  expressly  for  their  sacred  uses;  yet  there 
was  a  fitness,  such  as  has  always  been  recog- 
nized by  the  sense  of  mankind,  that  they  should 
first  be  especially  set  apart  by  a  solemn  ceremo- 
nial for  their  holy  purpose.  The  tabernacle 
and  all  that  was  therein. — In  Ex.  xxx.  26- 
28,  many  of  the  things  are  specially  mentioned, 
showing  that  Moses  with  the  anointing  oil  must 
have  passed  not  only  into  the  holy  place  but  into 
tlu'  holy  of  holies  itself. 

Ver.  11.  He  sprinkled  thereof  upon  the 
altar  seven  times. — This  refers  to  the  brazen 
altar  in  the  court,  as  is  shown  by  the  things  enu- 
merated with  it.  On  the  seven-fold  sprinkling 
see  on  iv.  6.  And  anointed  the  altar. — As 
this  is  a  different  act  from  the  sprinkling,  so 
does  this  special  sanctifying  of  the  altar  seem 
appropriate  to  its  use  in  the  sacrifices. 

Ver.  12.  He  poured  of  the  anointing  oil 
upon  Aaron's  head. — Comp.  Vs.  cxxxiii.  2. 
"The  anointing  with  oil  was  a  symbol  of  en- 
dowment with  the  Spirit  of  God  (1  Sam.  x.  1,6; 
xvi.  13,  14;  Isa.  lxi.  1)  for  the  duties  of  the 
office  to  which  a  person  was  consecrated,"  Keil. 
The  A.  V.  is  quite  accurate  in  marking  the  more 
abundant  anointing  of  Aaron  by  the  word 
poured.  The  symbolism  of  anointing  is  abun- 
dantly recognized  in  the  New  Test,  as  applied  to 
Christ  (Luke  iv.  18;  Acts  x.  38,  etc.).  There 
has  been  much  question  whether  the  sons  of 
Aaron  were  also  here  anointed.  On  the  one 
hand,  it.  had  been  commanded  that  they  should 
be  anointed  (Ex.  xxviii.  41 ;  xl.  15)  "thou  shall 
anoint  them  as  thou  didst  anoint  their  father," 
and  they  are  always  recognized  as  having  been 


Cn.VP.  VIII.  1-36. 


73 


anointed  (vii.  36  ;  x.  7) :  and  on  the  other  hand, 
there  is  no  mention  here  of  this  having  been 
done  (which  could  hardly  have  been  omitted  had 
it  taken  place)  ;  and  39  Aaron  was  first  robed, 
and  then  anointed,  while  his  sons  were  not  yet 
robed,  it  seems  necessary  to  consider  their  unc- 
tion as  having  been  confined  to  the  sprinkling 
with  mingled  oil  and  blood  of  ver.  30.  This 
would  be  quite  in  accordance  with  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  high-priest  alone  as  the  anointed 
priest  and  with  all  those  passages  in  which  his 
anointing  is  spoken  of  as  something  peculiar. 
(The  word  as  in  Ex.  xl.  15  cannot,  of  course,  be 
pressed — as  Kalisch  insists — to  mean  an  exactly 
similar  form  of  anointing). 

Ver.  13.  Next  comes  the  robing  of  Aaron's 
sons,  all  in  accordance  with  the  commands  so 
often  referred  to.  The  bonnets  were  also  a 
sort  of  turban,  but  it  may  be  inferred  from  the 
difference  in  the  Heb.  word  that  they  were  pro- 
bably differently  fashioned  from  that  of  the  high- 
priest. 

Vers.  14-30.  The  sacrifices  and  accompanying 
ceremonies. 

In  the  order  of  the  sacrifices  the  sin  offering 
comes  first,  then  the  burnt  offering,  lastly  the 
peace  offering;  this,  the  normal  order,  is  al- 
ways observed  (unless  in  certain  exceptional 
cases)  where  the  several  kinds  of  sacrifice  come 
together,  as  was  evidently  fitting  in  view  of  the 
special  object  of  each. 

The  victim  and  the  ritual  of  the  sin  offering 
are  the  same  as  that  appointed  for  the  sin  offer- 
ing of  the  high-priest  in  ch.  iv.  3-12,  except  that 
the  blood  was  not  brought  into  the  sanctuary 
nor  sprinkled  "before  the  vail."  The  reason 
commonly  assigned  for  this  is  that,  the  offering 
was  not  for  any  particular  sin,  but  only  for  a 
general  state  of  sinfulness.  So  Lange.  But  it 
is  to  be  "borne  in  mind  that  this  sacrifice  was  not 
for  Aaron  alone,  but  for  him  and  his  sons  toge- 
ther; also  it  was  not  for  an  already  consecrated 
liigh-priest,  but  for  one  who  was  in  the  very  act 
of  being  consecrated  and  not  yet  entitled  to  dis- 
charge the  functions  of  the  high-priest.  In  view 
of  what  he  was  to  be,  the  victim  might  well  be 
the  same  as  that  appointed  for  the  ordinary  sin 
offering  of  the  high-priest;  in  view  of  what  he 
actually  was,  it  was  fitting  that  there  should  be 
a  difference  in  the  ritual  as  regards  the  blood. 
Moses  took  the  blood  and  put  it  upon  the 
horns  of  the  altar  round  about  with  his 
finger,  as  was  done  in  all  sin  offerings,  only 
here  the  object  of  the  act  seems  to  have  been,  in 
part  at  least,  the  altar  itself.  This  had  been 
already  sprinkled  and  anointed;  now  by  the 
blood  it  is  still  further  purified,  and  also  sanc- 
tified, and  atonement  made  for  it.  On  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  blood  in  addition  to  the  oil,  see 
Heb.  ix.  21,  22.  The  application  of  this  to  the 
altar  was  for  the  same  general  reasons  as  in  case 
of  the  tabernacle  and  its  contents,  only  that  there 
was  especial  emphasis  in  regard  to  the  altar  on 
account  of  its  peculiar  use.  As  all  things  in 
heaven  and  earth  are  reconciled  unto  God  by 
the  blood  of  the  cross  (Col.  i.  20),  so  must  these 
typical  things  be  reconciled  by  the  blood  of  the 
typical  sacrifice. 

In  all  this  service  Moses,  by  a  special  Divine 
commission,  acts  as  the  priest.  Hence  he  is 
20 


spoken  of  in  Ps.  xcix.  6  as  "  among  His  priests," 
and  Philo  culls  him  a  high-priest.  He  did  not, 
however,  wear  the  priestly  garments,  and  strictly 
he  was  not  a  priest  at  all.  He  had  hitherto  acted 
as  priest  (Ex.  xl.  23),  although  he  had  not  be- 
fore offered  a  sin  offering  ;  but  now  he  was  both 
lees  and  more  than  a  priest.  Less,  in  that  with 
this  consecration  his  priestly  functions  abso- 
lutely ceased  ;  more,  in  that  he  now  acts  on  God's 
behalf  as  the  Mediator  of  the  Old  Covenant  (Gal. 
iii.  19).  The  Aaronic  priesthood  was  continued 
with  its  powers  by  hereditary  succession  ;  but 
all  chains  must  have  a  beginning,  and  all  au- 
thority must  have  a  giver.  Here  the  first  link 
of  the  chain,  the  beginning  of  all  priestly  autho- 
rity, is  given  by  Moses  acting  under  an  express 
commission  for  this  purpose,  from  the  Almighty. 
It  is  to  be  remembered  that  all  these  sacrifices 
were  consumed  by  fire  kindled  in  the  ordinary 
way,  the  fire  "from  before  the  Loed  '  (ix.  24) 
not  having  yet  come  forth. 

Vers.  18-21.  The  burnt  offering  differed  in 
nothing  from  the  ordinary  burnt  offering,  al- 
though the  victim  was  of  a  kind  less  commonly 
selected. 

Vers.  22-30.  The  peace  offering,  or  ram  of 
consecration.  Any  sacrificial  animal  might  be 
offered  in  the  ordinary  peace  offerings  ;  but  a 
ram,  as  here,  was  required  along  with  a  bullock 
for  the  priestly  peace  offering  immediately  after 
their  consecration  (ix.  4-8),  and  a  ram  alone  at 
the  fulfilment  of  the  Nazarite  vow  (Num.  vi.  14, 
17).  and  this  also  formed  a  part  of  the  varied 
peace  offerings  of  the  princes  after  the  dedica- 
tion of  the  altar  and  tabernacle  (Num.  vii.  17, 
23.  etc.). 

Ver.  22.  The  ram  of  consecration,  lit. 
"  the  ram  of  the  fillings,"  i.  e.  with  which  the 
hands  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  to  be  filled 
for  the  wave-offering,  ver.  27,  and  by  this  phra- 
seology is  the  idea  of  consecration  usually  ex- 
pressed according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom  (comp. 
the  verb  in  Judg.  xvii.  5,  12;  1  Kings  xiii.  33; 
Ezek.  xliii.  26,  etc.).  The  LXX.  renders  it 
Kpiiiv  -e/-etuaeoc=the  ram  of  perfecting,  inasmuch 
as  this  was  the  completion  of  the  consecration, 
and  signified  that  the  priest  was  now  enabled 
henceforth  to  offer  sacrifice  to  God.  Words- 
worth aptly  compares  it  to  the  delivery  of  the 
Bible  to  one  being  ordained  to  the  ministry  in 
the  early  Christian  Church  to  signify  that  he 
was  now  entitled  to  exercise  his  office  of  dispen- 
sing God's  word  to  the  people.  Lange  gives 
another  view  of  the  sense:  "The  fact  that 
Aaron  too,  and  his  sons,  belonged  to  the  congre- 
gation, and  with  it  must  bring  offerings  of  their 
fulness  towards  the  support  that  they  received 
from  it,  is  expressed  in  the  command  that  they 
shall  offer  a  second  ram  as  a  sacrifice  of  Ful- 
nesses." And  further:  "  Knobel  gives  Ordina- 
tion offering;  Keil,  Peace  offering.  The  peace  or 
thank  offering,  however,  was  not  brought  until 
the  eighth  day,  and  all  the  particulars  in  this 
chapter  belong  to  ordination  offerings.  It  is 
then  the  offering  of  the  fulness  of  his  emolu- 
ments, which  indeed  belongs  to  the  true  priestly 
character.'' 

Ver.  24.  Upon  the  tip  of  their  right  ear. 
— Whether  the  upper  or  the  lower  extremity  of 
the  ear  is  meant  is  disputed,  and  is  immaterial. 


74 


LEVITICUS. 


"lie  touched  the  extreme  points,  which  repre- 
sented the  whole,  of  the  ear,  hand,  and  foot  on 
the  right,  or  more  important  and  principal  side: 
the  far  because  the  priest  was  always  to  hearken 
to  the  word  and  commandment  of  God;  the 
hand,  because  he  was  to  discharge  the  priestly 
functions  properly ;  and  the  foot,  because  he 
was  to  walk  correctly  in  the  sanctuary.  Through 
this  manipulation  the  three  organs  employed  in 
the  priestly  service  were  placed,  by  means  of 
their  tips,  en  rapport  with  the  sacrificial  blood." 
Eeil  (quoted  in  part  by  Lange).  By  the  subse- 
quent sprinkling  of  the  same  blood  upon  the 
altar  all  was  associated  especially  with  sacrifice, 
the  pre-eminent  priestly  function.  It  is  notice- 
able that  the  same  parts  of  the  cleansed  leper 
were  in  the  same  way  to  be  touched  with  the 
blood  of  his  trespass  offering  (xiv.  14).  In  re- 
gard to  the  choice  of  the  members  on  the  right 
side,  Theodoret  (Qu.  8  in  Lev.)  significantly 
notes  that  "there  are  also  left-handed  actions 
and  obedience  of  condemnation." 

Vers.  '25-28.  The  ritual  of  the  wave  offering 
is  the  same  as  in  ease  of  the  ordinary  peace 
offerings;  only  Aaron  and  his  sons  are  here  the 
offerers,  and  hence  the  portions  waved  were 
burned  upon  the  altar,  instead  of  being  eaten 
by  the  priests.  Lange  says:  "  The  command  is 
to  be  particularly  noticed,  that  the  prophet 
should  take  this  offering  of  the  priests  from 
their  hands,  and  burn  it  upon  the  altar.  The 
prophetical  spirit  must  support  the  priesthood 
in  the  swinging  and  upheaving  from  the  earth 
without  which  it  is  lost." 

Ver.  29.  Moses  took  the  breast. — This 
also  he  'waved  for  a  wave  offering,  but  not 
on  Aaron's  hands.  This  was  done  by  special 
command,  and  was  not  the  part  belonging  ordi- 
narily to  the  officiating  priest  himself,  but  to 
the  priestly  order  generally.  The  parts  belong- 
ing to  the  officiating  priest  were  burned  upon 
the  altar  :  as  if  to  show  that  Moses,  by  thus  offi- 
ciating for  the  moment  under  a  peculiar  author- 
ization, did  not  become  actually  a  priest,  alt  hough 
he  might  be  in  some  sense  connected  with  the 
priestly  order. 

Ver.  30.  The  sprinkling  of  Aaron  and  his  sons 
and  their  garments  once  more,  and  now  with 
the  oil  mingled  with  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice, 
completes  the  consecration  service  of  this  and 
each  succeeding  day.  Lange :  "  The  combina- 
tion of  the  anointing  oil  and  the  blood  of  the 
sacrifice,  of  the  life  of  the  Spirit  and  the  joyful- 
ness  of  death,  poured  out  over  everything  that 
was  priestly,  is  here  the  typical  ground-idea." 
This  is  the  only  unction  of  the  sons  of  Aaron 
that  is  recorded ;  but  it  seems  quite  enough  to 
constitute  them  anointed  priests. 

Ver.  81.  Of  the  flesh  of  this  sacrifice  Aaron 
and  his  sons  must  eat;  but  no  one  else  might 
share  with  them  (Ex.  xxix.  33),  not  even  Moses. 
In  this  it  was  sharply  distinguished  from  the 
ordinary  peace  offering;  and  this  distinction 
was  further  marked  by  the  command  that  it 
should  be  eaten  within  the  court  of  the  taberna- 
cle, and  that  only  on  the  same  day,  and  in  its 
accompanying  oblation  there  was  no  leavened 
bread.  It  was  a  priestly  peace  offering,  and 
was  to  be  eaten  by  Aaron  and  his  sons  as  incho- 
ate priests. 


Ver.  34.  Rosenmiiller  notes  that  "the  verb 
TKty  is  here  to  be  taken  passively,  as  often 
"nXT  and    !Op.     See    1    Sam.    xxiii.    22;    Gen. 

-  T  TlT 

xvi.  14." 

Vers.  32-35.  Lange:  "Seven  days  they  were 
to  pass  in  holy  seclusion  in  the  court,  seven 
days  they  were  to  bring  the  appointed  sacrifices 
and  to  live  on  their  sacrifice  of  consecration; 
what  remained  of  it  might,  not  be  devoted  to 
common  uses,  but  must  be  burned.  So  for  seven 
days  they  were  to  keep  holy  watch,  the  watch 
of  Jehovah  in  the  court  of  the  tabernacle,  under 
the  penalty  of  death.  Moses  makes  particularly 
prominent  the  symbolic  force  of  this  divine 
watch;  it  is  Jehovah's  express  commandment. 
Keil  makes  plain,  however,  that  they  might  still 
go  out  in  certain  emergencies." 

DOCTRINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  The  whole  matter  of  atonement,  both  in 
the  sacrifices  and  in  the  priesthood,  depended 
upon  the  Divine  appointment ;  neither  of  them 
had  any  virtue  or  power  to  do  away  with  human 
sin  in  themselves.  Hence  they  could  have  been 
but  types  (since  the  Divine  government  is  ever 
a  reality),  and  looked  forward  to  a  Sacrifice 
which  should  have  value,  and  a  Priest  who 
should  have  power,  to  accomplish  in  reality  that 
which  is  here  foreshadowed,  and  restore  man  to 
communion  with  God  by  giving  him  that  holi- 
ness which  is  an  essential  prerequisite,  and  yet 
which  of  himself  he  can  never  attain. 

II.  By  the  fact  that  none  could  be  a  priest 
except  by  Divine  appointment  was  taught  under 
the  old  dispensation  the  truth  so  much  empha- 
sized in  the  new,  that  salvation  is  wholly  of 
God's  free  grace.  No  sacrifice  for  sin  cou'd 
bleed,  no  priest  could  sprinkle  the  blood,  except 
as  God  Himself  allowed  and  commanded. 

III.  Moses,  who  was  not  a  priest,  who  had 
never  been  anointed,  consecrated  Aaron,  and  by 
Divine  command  communicated  to  another  that 
which  he  did  not  himself  have.  This  illustrates 
the  fact  that  God  is  not  Himself  limited  by  the 
limitations  He  has  placed  upon  man.  He  can 
use  for  a  priest  one  to  whom  the  priesthood,  ex- 
cept for  this  u-*e,  has  not  been  communicated. 

IV.  Although  God  appointed,  and  Moses  mi- 
nistered, yet  must  all  the  people  be  summoned 
to  witness  the  consecration  of  the  priests,  and 
by  their  presence  give  their  assent.  This  as  all 
other  parts  of  the  Lfivitical  system  was  of  the 
nature  of  a  covenant.  God  alone  could  pro- 
claim the  laws;  but  it  is  of  the  people  to  pro- 
mise obedience:  God  alone  could  constitute  men 
priests  ;  but  it  is  for  the  people  to  accept  aud 
avail  themselves  of  their  mediation. 

V.  Lange  on  ver.  13:  "And  now  first  are  the 
assistants  spoken  of.  The  whole  priesthood  is 
concentrated  in  the  anointed  priest,  the  head 
priest,  the  high-priest:  a  symbol  which  has 
been  fulfilled  in  Christ,  but  not  a  second  time  in 
an  inferior  symbol." 

VI.  In  this  chapter  of  Leviticus  and  the  cor- 
responding one  of  Exodus  the  consecration  of 
Aaron  is  frequently  expressed  in  the  LXX.  by 
the  verb  Tefciou  and  its  derivative  Ttleiuaie ;  and 
correspondingly,  with  express  reference  to  this 


CHAP.  VIII.  1-36. 


75 


law,  the  same  word  is  applied  to  the  consecra- 
tion of  Christ  in  Heb.  ii.  10;  vii.  28.  He  was 
consecrated  in  the  sufferings  of  the  cross,  and 
thenceforward  continues  our  high-priest  and 
intercessor  for  evermore. 

VII.  The  washing  of  Aaron  and  his  sons,  the 
linen  drawers,  and  the  linen  tunic  express  as 
clearly  and  emphatically  as  is  possible  to  sym- 
bolism the  absolute  necessity  of  inward  purity 
in  those  who  would  draw  near  to  God. 

VIII.  The  culmination  of  the  high-priest's 
vestments  was  in  the  golden  plate  on  his  fore- 
head, and  on  this  was  inscribed  "holiness  to 
the  Lord."  This  then  was  the  culmination  of 
the  Levitical,  as  of  every  other  dispensation  ;  the 
one  point  towards  which  all  lines  of  precept  and 
of  ceremony,  of  plain  Divine  command  and  of 
symbolical  teaching  converge  is  "  Holiness  to 
the  Lord." 

HOMILETICAL   AND   PRACTICAL. 

As  Moses  by  Divine  appointment  was  able  to 
consecrate  Aaron,  so  may  any  one,  in  the  power 
of  God,  become  to  another  the  channel  of  grace 
which  he  himself  may  not  possess;  one's  own 
deficiencies  are  then  no  sufficient  bar  to  work 
for  others.  Moses  summoned  all  the  people : 
there  are  none  without  interest  in  the  means 
provided  for  the  atonement  for  sin.  The  Sept. 
here  (vers.  3,  4)  used  the  word  'ncKXrjoii^u  (var. 
lect.  imiXriaia),  and  this  is  the  first  place  where 
that  word  or  iKiCkqaia  occurs ;  Cyril  of  Jerusa- 
lem hence  notes  that  the  Church  is  thus  presented 
to  us  first  when  Aaron,  the  type  of  Christ,  is 
invested  with  the  high-priesthood.  Aaron  was 
first  washed,  then  vested ;  Origen  thereupon 
remarks  (Horn.  6  in  Lev.  $2)  that  except  the 
Christian  be  washed  from  his  sins,  he  cannot 
put  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Comp.  Rev.  i.  5, 
6.  "So  our  great  High  Priest  was  publicly 
inaugurated  in  the  presence  of  a  large  multitude 

by  Hi3  baptism So  all  Christians,  who 

"are  made  priests  to  God"  in  Christ,  are  initi- 
ated into  their  priesthood  in  baptism."  Wordsw. 
With  the  symbolical  setting  apart  for  holy  uses 
of  the  sacred  vessels  compare  the  expressions  in 
the  N.  Test,  "chosen  vessel"  (Acts  ix.  15),  ves- 
sels to  honor  and  to  dishonor,  and  vessels  of 
wrath  (Rom.  ix.  21-23),  etc.  "  The  ephod  bear- 
ing the  onyx  stones  on  the  shoulder  straps,  with 
the  breast-plate  containing  the  Urim  and  the 
Thummim,  is  symbolic  of  the  priestly  function. 


.  .  .  .  The  holy  crown,  with  its  legible  and  in- 
telligible motto,  indicates  the  holiness  and  au- 
thority which  appertain  to  the  royal  Priest. 
And  in  their  correlation,  the  stones  on  the 
shoulder  especially  denote  the  priestly,  those  on 
the  breast-plate  the  prophetic,  and  the  golden 
plate  on  the  forehead  the  kingly,  function  of  the 
Mediator."  Murphy.  As  Aaron  and  his  sons 
must  be  anointed  to  become  priests,  so,  says  St. 
John,  has  Christ-  communicated  an  unction  to 
the  Christian  which  "abideth"  in  him  (1  John 
ii.  20,  27).  The  three  sacrifices  of  the  consecra- 
tion, the  sin,  the  burnt,  and  the  peace  offering, 
as  they  together  represent  the  three-fold  fulness 
of  the  one  sacrifice  of  Christ,  so  do  they  point 
out  the  three-fold  duty  by  which  Christians  may 
obtain  the  benefits  of  that  sacrifice,  and  thereby 
become  "priests  unto  God,"  viz.  death  unto  sin, 
fulness  of  obedience,  and  communion  with  God. 
Aaron  was  consecrated  by  these  sacrifices  to  be 
a  priest  "  offering  oftentimes  the  same  sacrifices, 
which  can  never  take  away  sins;"  but  "Christ, 
"after  He  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins  for- 
ever," "hath  perfected  (reTeketuicev,  hath  con- 
secrated as  priests)  forever  them  that  are  sanc- 
tified "  (Heb.  x.  14).  Wordsworth.  When  Moses 
had  gathered  the  people,  he  explained  to  them 
what  he  was  about  to  do  (ver.  5),  that  they 
might  be  intelligent  witnesses;  so  is  the  service 
of  God  ever  a  reasonable  service.  Aaron's  ear, 
hand  and  foot  were  touched  with  the  anointing 
oil  as  well  as  himself  sprinkled ;  so  must  each 
single  faculty  of  those  who  have  "the  unction 
from  the  Holy  One"  be  especially  sanctified  and 
consecrated  to  God's  service,  as  well  as  the 
whole  body  soul  and  spirit  be  generally  devoted 
to  Him,  for  the  general  only  becomes  con- 
cretely real  in  the  particulars.  In  the  mingling 
of  the  blood  and  oil  (ver.  30)  for  the  anointing 
seems  to  be  taught  that  not  sacrifice  for  sin  alone 
suffices;  but  that  with  this  must  be  joined  the 
unction  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  only  sin  is  put 
out  without  anything  being  taken  in,  the  house 
is  but  swept  and  garnished  for  its  old  occupant. 
With  the  watch  of  the  now  partially  consecrated 
priests  seven  days  in  the  court  of  the  tabernacle, 
compare  the  waiting  of  the  Apostles  in  Jerusa- 
lem after  our  Lord's  ascension  until  endued  at 
Pentecost  with  power  from  on  high.  And  with 
this,  too,  compare  the  life-long  watch  of  every 
Christian;  he  has  already  received  an  unction 
from  on  high,  but  waits  in  this  earthly  taber- 
nacle until  he  shall  be  called  at  last  to  enter  into 
the  Holy  of  holies. 


76  LEVITICUS. 


SECOND   SECTION. 

Entrance  of  Aaron  and  his  Sons  on  their  Office. 
Chap.  IX.  1-24. 

1  And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  eighth  day,  that  Moses  called  Aaron  and  his  sons, 

2  and  the  elders1  of  Israel ;  and  he  said  unto  Aaron,  Take  thee  a  young  [bull'*']  calf 
for  a  siu  offering,  and  a  ram  for  a  burnt  offering,  without  blemish,  and  offer  them 

3  before  the  Lord.  And  unto  the  children1  of  Israel  thou  shalt  speak,  saying,  Take 
ye  a  kid  [buck3]  of  the  goats  for  a  sin  offering  ;  and  a  calf  and  a  lamb   [sheep4] 

4  both  of  the  first  year,  without  blemish,  for  a  burnt  offering :  also  a  bullock  and  a 
ram  for  peace  offerings,  to  sacrifice  before  the  Lord  ;  and  a  meat  onering  [an 
oblation5]  mingled  with  oil :  for  to-day  the  Lord  will  appear  uuto  you. 

5  And  they  brought  that  which  Moses  commanded  before6  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation:  and  all  the  congregation  drew  near  and  stood  before  the  Lord. 

6  And  Moses  said,  This  is  the  thing  which  the  Lord  commanded  that  ye  should  do :' 

7  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  appear  unto  you.  And  Moses  said  uuto  Aaron, 
Go  unto  the  altar,  and  offer  thy  sin  offering,  and  thy  burnt  offering,  and  make  an 
atonement  for  thyself,  and  for  the  people  :8  and  offer  the  offering  of  the  people,  and 
make  an  atonement  for  them :  as  the  Lord  commanded. 

8  Aaron  therefore  went  unto  the  altar,  and  slew  the  calf  of  the  sin  offering,  which 

9  was  for  himself.  And  the  sons  of  Aaron  brought  the  blood  unto  him :  and  he 
dipped  his  finger  in  the  blood,  and  put  it  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar,  and  poured 

10  out  the  blood  at  the  bottom  of  the  altar  :  but  the  fat,  and  the  kidneys,  and  the  caul 
above  the  liver  of  the  sin  offering,  he  burnt  upon  the  altar :  as  the  Lord  com- 

11  manded  Moses.     And  the  flesh  and  the  hide  he  burnt  with  fire  without  the  camp. 

12  And  he  slew  the  burnt  offering;  and  Aaron's  sons  presented  unto  him  the  blood, 

13  which  he  sprinkled  round  about  upon  the  altar.     And   they  presented  the  burnt 
offering  unto  him,  with  [according  to9]  the  pieces  thereof  and  the  head :  and  he 

14  burnt  them  upon10  the  altar.     And  he  did  wash  the  inwards  and  the  legs,  and  burnt 
them  upon  the  burnt  offering  on  the  altar. 

15  And  he  brought  the  people's  offering,  and  took  the  goat,  which  was  the  sin  offer- 
ing for  the  people,  and  slew  it,  and  offered  it  for  sin  [a  sin  offering11],  as  the  first. 

16  And  he  brought  the  burnt  offering,  and  offered  it  according  to  the  manner  [ordi- 

17  nance12].     And  he  brought  the  meat  offering   [oblation5],   and  took  an  handful 
thereof,  and  burnt  it  upon  the  altar,  beside  the  burnt  sacrifice  of  the  morning. 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

I  Ver.  1.  For  *JpT  the  Sam.  and  LXX.  read  y}2,  but  change  the  reading  in  the  opposite  way  in  ver.  3.    Rosenmiil- 

■■I  :•  •• :  t 

ler  considers  these  elders  as  the  same  with  the  7"ni*  and  the  771p  of  ch.  viii. 
,  t  ••  t  It 

8  Ver.  2.  1p3-[3   TIM,  lit.  calf  son  of  a  bnH=a  bull  calf,  or  yearling  bull. 

3  Ver.  3.  D,ij;   "V^'ty.    See  note  ^  on  iv.  23. 

4  Ver.  3.  Bee  note  &  on  ii.  7. 

6  Ver.  4.  Oblation.     See  note  2  on  ii.  1.    The  Vulg.  adds  in  suigvlo  sacrtficiorum,  for  each  of  the  sacrifices. 

6  Ver.  5.  The  A.  V.  more  exactly  expresses  the  Sam.   *J3  /   (comp.  vers.  2,  4)  tban  the  Ileb.  *JD-7N. 

7  Ver.  G.  Ilorsley  would  here  change  the  punctuation  and  read — which  the  Lord  commanded:  Do  it,  and  the  glory, 
etc.;  but  this  would  require  also  the  insertion  of  a  pronoun. 

8  Ver.  7.  For  thepeqple  the  LXX.  reads  tou  oIkov  trov. 

•  Ver.  13.  n*nnj 7=according  to  ita  pieces  (into  which  the  burnt  offering  was  divided,  i.  6).    So  the  Ancient  Versions 
x  v  t  :  - 
generally.     So  Enobel  and  Keil. 

10  Ver.  13.  The  preposition  7J»  is  wanting  in  the  Sam. 

II  Ver.  16.  The  word  of  course  bears  either  ser.3e;  but  the  context  here  clearly  requires  that  of  sin-offering. 

12  Ver.  1G.  U^l*^ 3.    The  margin  is  clearly  better  than  the  text  of  the  A.  V.    The  ordinance  has  been  given  in  ch.  i. 


CIUP.  IX.  1-21. 


77 


18  He  slew  also  the  bullock  and  the  ram  for  a  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings,  which  was 
for  the  people :  and  Aaron's  sons  presented  unto  him  the  blood,  which  he  sprinkled 

19  upon  the  altar  round  about,  and  the  fat  of  the  bullock  and  of  the  ram,  the  rump 
[fat  tail1'],  and  that  which  covereth  the  inwards,  and  the  kidneys,  and  the  caul 
above  the  liver :  and  they1*  put  the  fat  upon  the  breasts,  and  he  burnt  the  fat  upon 
the  altar :  and  the  breasts  and  the  right  shoulder  Aaron  waved  for  a  wave  offering 
before  the  Lord  ;  as  Moses15  commanded. 

And  Aaron  lifted  up  his  hand  [hands16]  toward  the  people,  and  blessed  them, 
and  came  down  from  offering  of  the  sin  offering,  and  the  burnt  offering,  and  peace 
offeriugs.  And  Moses  and  Aaron  went  into  the  tabernacle  of  the  [pm.  the]  congre- 
gation, and  came  out  and  blessed  the  people :  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  appeared 
unto  all  the  people. 

And  there  came  a  fire  out  from  before  the  Lord,  and  consumed  upon  the  altar 
the  burnt  offering  and  the  fat :  which  when  all  the  people  saw,"  they  shouted,  and 
fell  on  their  faces. 


20 
21 

22 

23 


24 


13  Ver.  19.  Fat  tail.     See  note  7  on  iii.  9. 

1*  Ver.  20.  Tlie  S;im.  h:is  the  sing.,  he  put.  .  .  „  ,    ,  «, 

is  Ver.  21.  The  Sam.,  LXX.,  Targ.  Ont.  and  30  5IS3.  DUO  ilX  HliT  HIV— as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses. 

i«  Ver.  22.  The  k'ri  has  VT  in  the  plural,  according  with  the  Vowel  points;  so  20  MSS.  and  all  the  ancient  versions 

TT 

except  the  Sam.     The  plural  is  probably  correct. 

it  Ver.  24.  The  Heb.  verb  is  singular;  but  the  Sam.  has  the  plural. 


EXEGETICAL   AND    CRITICAL. 

It  is  noticed  by  Nicholas  de  Lyra,  that  this 
chapter  has  three  essential  parts:  (1)  the  com- 
mands (vers.  1-7) ;  (2)  the  execution  of  them 
(vers.  8-22) ;  (3)  the  Divine  approbation  of  what 
was  done  (vers,  23,  24).  The  second  part  may 
be  subdivided  into  Aaron's  offerings  for  himself, 
vers.  8-14  ;  and  his  offerings  for  the  people,  vers. 
15-21.  Here  begins  a  new  Proper  Lesson  of  the 
law  for  reading  in  the  Synagogue  extending 
through  ch.  xi. ;  the  parallel  Proper  Lesson  from 
the  Prophets  being  2  Sam.  vi.  1 — vii.  17,  which 
gives  the  account  of  David's  bringing  up  the  ark 
to  Mt.  Zion  and  his  purpose  to  build  a  temple 
for  it  there. 

Ver.  1.  On  the  eighth  day,  inz.,  from  the 
beginning  of  Aaron's  consecration.  That  had 
occupied  seven  days,  and  his  entrance  upon  his 
office  now  immediately  followed  on  the  next  day, 
there  being  no  cause  for  delay,  and  every  reason 
why  the  priesthoood  should  be  in  the  active  ex- 
ercise of  its  duties  at  once.  His  priesthood  was 
still  somewhat  iuchoate,  for  he  had  yet  dis- 
charged none  of  its  functions,  and  had  not  en- 
tered into  the  sanctuary.  This  affects  the  cha- 
racter of  the  sacrifices  prescribed.  On  the  first 
day  of  the  first  month  the  tabernacle  had  been 
set  up  (Ex.  xl.  17),  and  the  Passover  was  kept 
on  the  fourteenth  day  (Num.  ix.  2,  5)  ;  the  seven 
days'  consecration  came  between,  and  there  re- 
mained therefore  but  a  few  days  before  the  pre- 
paration for  the  Passover.  We  have  no  data  for 
determining  the  day  of  the  week.  The  elders 
of  Israel  are  now  summoned  because  they  have 
to  act  officially  in  presenting  the  offerings  for 
the  people  ;  but  doubtless  the  mass  of  the  people 
were  also,  as  far  as  might  be,  witnesses  of  the 
entrance  of  Aaron  upon  his  office  (ver.  5,  comp. 
ver.  24). 

Ver.  2.  Take  thee. — Aaron  is  to  furnish  his 
own  victims  at  his  own  proper  cost.  The  victim 
for  the   Bin  offering  was  to  be  a  bull  calf,  or 


quite  young  bullock,  an  inferior  offering  to  that 
prescribed  for  the  high-priest  in  iv.  3.  For  this 
various  reasons  have  been  assigned  :  as  that  this 
was  not  for  any  particular  sin,  but  for  general 
sinfulness  (Poole  and  others) ;  that  it  had  refe- 
rence to  Aaron  and  the  people's  siu  in  the  golden 
calf  (Ex.  xxxii.),  and  was  designed  to  remind 
him  and  them  of  it  (Maimonides,  Patrick,  Nich. 
de  Lyra,  and  others);  that  the  greater  sin  offer- 
ing was  unnecessary,  as  Aaron  and  his  sons  had 
spent  the  whole  previous  week  in  services  of 
atonement  and  of  holiness:  but  the  more  im- 
portant reason  is  that  given  by  Kalisch,  "Not 
even  on  the  eighth  day  had  Aaron's  dignity 
reached  its  full  independence  and  glory  ;  it  still 
remained,  to  a  certain  degree,  under  the  control 
of  Moses,  who  gave  commands  to  his  brother,  as 
he  had  received  them  from  God.  Therefore 
Aaron  was  not  permitted  to  pass  beyond  the 
court;  he  was  not  yet  qualified  to  appear  in  the 
immediate  presence  of  God."  In  a  word,  the 
inchoateness  of  his  priesthood  was  marked  in 
the  victim  and  its  ritual.  A  ram  for  a  burnt 
offering. — Any  male  sacrificial  animal  was  al- 
lowed for  a  burnt  offering,  but  here  the  most 
impressive  kind  is  not  chosen  for  the  reason  just 
given.  No  peace  offering  is  prescribed  for  the 
priests,  because  their  share  in  the  offerings  of 
the  people  was  quite  enough  for  so  small  a  com- 
pany, and  sufficed  for  the  common  feast  of  com- 
munion with  God.  The  order  of  the  offerings, 
the  sin  offering  first,  the  peace  offering  last,  has 
been  noticed  in  the  previous  chapter. 

Ver.  3.  Thou  shalt  speak. — Moses  now 
passes  over  to  Aaron  the  duty  of  directing  the 
people  in  their  sacrifices  as  their  appointed  and 
consecrated  high-priest.  The  offerings  for  the 
people  are  :  first,  the  sin  offering,  which  is  not 
that  prescribed  for  the  sin  of  the  whole  people 
(iv.  14),  but  for  the  Bin  of  a  prince  (iv.  23),  the 
reason  for  which  generally  given  is  that  this  was 
not  for  a  particular  sin,  but  only  for  general  sin- 
fulness ;  but  it  seems  fit  that  this  sin  offering 
should    have    been    reduced  in   proportion   to 


7S 


LEVITICUS. 


Aaron's,  and  for  the  same  reason.  Second,  the 
burnt  offering,  which  was  to  consist  of  two  vic- 
tims, and  yet  was  much  less  than  on  occasions 
of  special  solemnity  (Num.  xxviii.  11,  27,  etc.). 
Third,  the  peace  offering,  which  was  just  enough 
for  the  purpose  of  the  symbolical  sacrificial  feast, 
but  yet  too  small  for  any  considerable  festivity 
in  view  of  the  solemn  manifestation  to  follow 
(vers.  4,  G,  24). 

Ver.  6.  Moses,  as  before,  explains  what  is  to 
be  done  that  thus  the  people  may  be  intelligent 
witnesses.  He  announces  beforehand  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  glory  of  the  LORD  (see  ver. 
23),  showing  that  he  did  all  this  by  appointment, 
and  when  it  appeared  it  thus  established  his  au- 
thority ;  and  also  that  the  people,  by  these  sa- 
crifices, might  be  prepared  for  this  manifestation. 
"  The  crown  of  this  typical  worship  was  to  consist 
in  this:  To-day  the  LORD  will  appear  to 
you  ;  and  again,  this  is  the  thing  which  the 
LORD  hath  commanded  that  ye  should  do, 
and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  appear  to 
you."   Lange. 

Ver.  7.  Go  unto  the  altar. — Aaron  is  now 
to  enter  upon  his  office,  and  for  the  first  time 
ascend  the  slope  of  the  altar.  Make  an  atone- 
ment for  thyself  and  for  the  people.— This 
is  distinct  from  the  atonement  for  the  people  in 
the  sacrifice  of  their  sin  offering,  mentioned  in 
the  next  clause,  and  finds  its  explanation  in  that 
guilt  brought  upon  the  people  by  the  sin  of  the 
Ligh-priest  (iv.  3).  So  Keil  rightly.  For  this 
Aaron  was  to  atone  in  making  his  own  atone- 
ment, and  then  afterwards  to  offer  for  their  own 
sins.  Lange  says,  "  The  subsequent  command 
in  regard  to  these  offerings  has  this  import :  with 
his  especial  sacrifice  Aaron  should  atone  for 
himself  and  for  the  people  as  a  whole  (DJ?H), 
but  with  the  sacrifice  of  the  congregation,  he 
should  atone  for  each  single  member  of  the  con- 
gregation." 

Vers.  8-11.  Aaron  first  offers  his  own  sin  of- 
fering, his  Bons  assisting  him  in  those  duties 
which  were  afterwards  assigned  to  the  Levites. 
The  ritual  is  the  same  as  that  provided  in  ch. 
iv.,  except  that  the  blood  is  not  brought  into  the 
Sanctuary  (into  which  Aaron  had  not  yet  en- 
tered, comp.  ver.  23),  for  the  reasons  given  un- 
der ver.  2;  but  the  flesh  and  hide  is  neverthe- 
less burnt  without  the  camp  as  required  in  iv. 
11,  12,  the  victim  is  slain  by  Aaron, — -either  by 
himself,  or  by  his  assistants, — (ver.  8)  as  in  the 
other  high -priestly  sin  offerings  (iv.  1,2,4)  and  the 
blood  is  put  with  his  finger  upon  the  horns  of 
the  altar  as  in  case  of  the  other  regular  sin  offer- 
ings (iv.  25,  30,  34). 

Vers.  12-14.  The  burnt  offering  for  Aaron  and 
his  sons  was  offered  in  the  regular  way  accord- 
ing to  the  ordinance  of  ch.  i.  After  being  divided 
the  pieces  were  presented  to  Aaron,  one  by  one, 
by  his  sons  to  be  laid  upon  the  altar.  No  men- 
tion is  made  of  an  oblation  with  this  sacrifice, 
either  because  it  is  supposed  as  of  course,  or 
else  because  it  actually  was  not  brought,  the  law 
of  Num.  xv.  4  not  having  yet  been  given. 

Vers.  15-21.  The  sacrifices  for  the  people  fol- 
low in  the  same  order.  In  regard  to  all  the  pre- 
vious offerings  it  is  expressly  said  that  Aaron 
burnt  them ;  the  same  thing  is  also  said  (ver.  20) 


of  the  parts  of  the  peace  offering  that  were  des- 
tined for  the  altar,  and  it  is  clearly  implied  in 
regard  to  the  others  by  the  expression  as  the 
first  (ver.  15)  in  regard  to  the  sin  offering ;  and 
in  regard  to  the  burnt  offering,  both  by  the 
statement  of  ver.  16,  and  by  the  mention  of  the 
burning  of  the  accompanying  oblation  in  ver. 
17.  These  were  all  therefore  burned  at  first  by 
fire  kindled  by  ordinary  means.  It  would,  how- 
ever, thus  have  taken  many  hours  to  consume 
them  in  the  ordinary  way,  and  the  miracle  of 
ver.  24  refers  to  their  being  immediately  con- 
sumed by  the  "  fire  from  before  the  Lokd."  The 
LXX.,  however,  in  vers.  13  and  17,  instead  of 
burnt  renders  laid,  and  this  seems  to  have  been 
in  the  mind  of  Lange  when  he  says  "Aaron  has 
laid  all  the  pieces  rightly  upon  the  altar  of  burnt 
offering,  and  blessed  the  people  from  the  elevated 
position  of  the  steps  (stiege)  of  the  altar.  The 
sacrifice  is  ready,  this  is  the  part  of  the  priestly 
body  ;  but  the  fire  must  come  from  the  Lokd." 
In  regard  to  the  burning  instead  of  eating  the 
flesh  of  the  sin  offering,  see  x.  16-20. 

Ver.  17.  The  burnt  sacrifice  of  the  morn- 
ing.— Was  this  the  regular  morning  sacrifice  of 
the  lamb  offered  by  Aaron  after  the  sacrifices  for 
himself  and  before  those  for  the  people,  but  not 
otherwise  mentioned  because  it  was  of  course' 
Or  is  it  identical  with  the  lamb  of  the  burnt  of- 
fering for  the  people,  so  that  the  morning  sacri- 
fice to  be  offered  ever  after  is  here  inaugurated, 
as  is  argued  by  Murphy  ?  The  former  view 
seems  the  more  probable  both  because  the  offer- 
ing of  the  morning  sacrifice  had  already  been 
begun  by  Moses  (Ex.  xl.  29)  upon  the  first  erec- 
tion of  the  tabernacle  and  before  Aaron's  conse- 
cration ;  and  because  the  lamb  of  this  offering 
is  evidently  spoken  of  (ver.  3)  as  a  part  of  the 
special  burnt  offering  for  the  people  on  this  oc- 
casion. 

Ver.  22.  Lifted  up  his  hands. — In  pro- 
nouncing a  blessing  upon  an  individual  it  waa 
customary  to  lay  the  hands  upon  his  head  (Gen. 
xlviii.  14,  etc.)  ;  but  this  being  impossible  in  the 
case  of  a  multitude,  the  custom  was  to  lift  the 
hands,  as  was  also  often  done  in  other  prayers, 
and  this  custom  has  been  most  scrupulously  pre- 
served in  the  Jewish  usages  to  the  present  day. 
Hands  rather  ih&\xhand\s  the  more  probable  read- 
ing, and  is  also  accordant  with  the  Jewish  tradi- 
tion. No  command  had  been  given  for  this  act, 
but  it  was  a  natural  sequence  of  the  entrance  of 
Aaron  upon  his  office,  a  part  of  which  was  to 
bless  the  people  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  The 
blessing  was  pronounced  while  Aaron  stood  upon 
the  elevated  slope  (not  steps,  Ex.  xx.  26)  of  the 
altar.  In  the  following  words,  came  down 
from  offering,  we  have  a  further  evidence  that 
the  victims  hail  been  actually  laid  upon  the  fire. 

Ver.  23.  Went  into  the  tabernacle. — 
Moses  enters,  not  as  priest,  but  to  complete  the 
initiation  of  Aaron  into  his  duties;  for  the  latter 
had  not  yet  entered  the  sanctuary.  Much  of 
the  priestly  duty,  the  burning  of  incense,  the 
trimming  of  the  sacred  lamps,  the  ordering  of  the 
shew-bread,  etc.,  was  hereafter  to  be  within  the 
tabernacle,  and  it  was  necessary  that  Aaron 
should  be  exactly  instructed  in  all  these  matters. 
According  to  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  they  went 
in  to  pray  for  the  promised  manifestation  of  the 


CHAP.  IX.  1-24. 


79 


glory  of  the  Lord  ;  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
the  two  brothers,  the  one  the  leader  and  lawgiver 
of  Israel,  now  entering  the  sanctuary  for  the  last 
time,  and  the  other  the  appointed  high-priest 
now  entering  for  the  first  time,  should  then  have 
united  in  solemn  prayer  for  God's  blessing  upou 
the  people.  On  their  return,  Moses  laying  down 
his  temporary  priestly  functions,  aud  Aaron 
taking  up  his  permanent  office,  jointly  blessed 
the  people.  (Comp.  2  Chron.  vi.  3).  In  Numb. 
vi.  24-2ti  is  prescribed  the  exact  form  of  priestly 
benediction  used  ever  afterwards;  but  there  is 
no  evidence  that  this  form  was  now  employed. 
One  tradition  makes  the  form  like  that  of  Ps.  xc. 
17:  I  lie  Targums  of  Jonathan  and  Jerusalem 
give  the  following:  "The  Word  of  the  Lord  re- 
ceive your  offering  with  good  pleasure,  and  may 
He  overlook  and  pardon  your  sins." 

And  the  glory  of  the  Lord  appeared. — 
This  is  sometimes  considered  as  included  in  the 
fire  of  the  following  verse,  but  more  generally 
and  more  probably  is  looked  upon  as  some  glo- 
rious manifestation  in  the  cloud  which  covered 
the  tabernacle  (comp.  Ex.  xl.  34,  35),  out  of 
which  came  forth  the  fire.     So  Lange. 

Ver.  24.  There  came  a  fire. — Similarly  was 
the  Divine  approbation  of  sacrifices  several  times 
expressed  in  after  ages,  in  the  fire  from  the  rock 
consuming  Gideon's  sacrifice;  in  the  fire  which 
fell  upon  the  sacrifice  of  Elijah  (1  Kings  xviii. 
38)  ;  in  the  answer  to  David's  prayer  at  the 
threshing  floor  of  Oman  by  fire  from  heaven  upon 
his  altar  (1  Chr.  xxi.  26);  and  in  the  like  fire 
consuming  the  sacrifices  at  Solomon's  dedication 
of  the  temple  (2  Chr.  vii.  1).  According  to  Jew- 
ish tradition  the  fire  thus  kindled  was  kept  ever 
burning  (whether  by  natural  or  supernatural 
means,  (he  Rabbis  differ)  until  the  temple  was 
built ;  then  again  kindled  in  the  same  way,  it 
continued  to  burn  until  the  reign  of  Manasseh. 
But  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  fire  was  not 
now  first  kindled  upon  the  altar,  but  had  already 
been  burning  there  more  than  a  week.  How- 
ever fully  therefore  it  expressed  the  Divine  ap- 
probation, and  however  reasonably  the  Israel- 
ites might  wish  to  perpetuate  such  a  fire,  there 
is  yet,  as  Keil  justly  remarks,  no  analogy  be- 
tween this  and  the  legends  of  the  heathen  about 
altar  fires  kindled  by  the  gods  themselves.  See 
the  references  in  Knobel :  Serv.  ad  (En.  12,  200  ; 
Solin.  5,  -■'>;  Pausao.  5,  27,  3;  Sueton.  Lib.  14; 
Ainm.  Marc.  23,  6,  34.  It  is  possible  that  this 
coming  forth  of  the  fire  may  have  had  a  further 
object.  In  the  Pantheistio  philosophies  of  the 
East,  fire  was  regarded  as  the  universal  principle 
of  the  Cosmos,  and  as  inherent  in  all  things.  It 
is  not  likely  that  the  Israelites,  at  this  stage  of 
their  hist  iry,  were  brought  into  contact  with 
this  philosophy  ;  but  by  this  act  they  were  taught 
that  fire  itself  was  sent  from  the  Lord,  and  were 
thus  guarded  beforehand  against  these  Pantbe- 
t heist ic  notions,  which  at  a  later  period  they 
mu*t  encounter. 

Consumed  upon  the  altar  the  burnt  of- 
fering and  the  fat. — Patrick  argues  that  this 
must  have  been  at  the  time  of  the  evening  sacri- 
fice, at  which  time  also  he  shows  that  all  the 
other  instances  of  fire  from  heaven  upon  the  sa- 
crifice probably  occurred,  and  that  the  burnt 
offering  consumed  was  the  lamb  of  the  evening 


sacrifice.  But  the  phraseology,  the  burnt  of- 
fering and  the  fat,  seems  unmistakably  to 
point  to  the  burnt  offering  for  the  people  aud  the 
fat  of  the  peace  offering  already  burning  upon 
the  altar.  With  the  evening  sacrifice  there  was 
no  offering  of  fat  apart  from  the  lamb  itself. 

They  shouted  in  wonder,  thanksgiving  and 
praise,  and  fell  on  their  faces  to  worship  with 
joyful  awe  as  in  2  Chron.  vii.  3. 

The  views  of  Lange  upon  this  verse  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  following  extract:  "And  now 
comes  Fire  from  the  Lord,  that  is,  still  out  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  Covenant,  and  blazes  upou  the 
altar  and  consumes  the  offering.  So  speaks  the 
primitive  energetic  faith,  in  which  the  medium 
of  the  Divine  operation  merges  itself  in  the  ope- 
randi of  God.  It  is  the  essential  thing  in  the 
hierarchical,  literal  faith  that  every  medium 
should  be  supposed  to  be  away.  Hence  is  the 
stone  of  the  first  tables  of  the  law  and  the  imme- 
diate writing  of  God  ;  and  we  come  on  the  path 
of  priestly  tradition  down  to  the  Easter  fire  in 
the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  at  Jerusalem. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  medium  is  everything  to 
the  critical,  negative,  literal  faith  ;  for  it,  the 
matter  is  legend.  But  the  primitive,  religiously- 
inclined  people,  saw  in  the  shining  figures  of 
Moses  and  Aaron,  who  came  back  out  of  the 
Sanctuary,  and  in  the  flaming  up  of  the  sacrifi- 
cial fire,  the  glory  of  the  Lord  whose  appearance 
from  the  Holy  of  Holies  Moses  and  Aaron  had 
besought.  It  was  the  first  lifting  up  of  the  highly 
significant  fire  flame  in  their  worship,  whose 
typical  prefiguration  should  be  fulfilled  in  the 
atoning  fiery  operation  over  the  cross  of  Christ, 
and — not  frightened — but  joyously,  all  the  peo- 
ple fell  on  their  faces." 

DOCTRINAL    AND    ETHICAL. 

I.  In  Aaron's  sin  offering  for  himself  and  his 
eons,  immediately  after  his  consecration,  and  as 
his  first  priestly  act,  is  shown  most  strikingly 
the  imperfection  of  the  Levitical  priesthood. 
"This  offering  was  probably  regarded  not  so 
much  a  sacrifice  for  his  own  actual  sins,  as  a  ty- 
pical acknowledgment  of  his  sinful  nature  and 
of  his  future  duty  to  offer  for  his  own  sins  and 
those  of  the  people  "  (Clark).  "  The  law  maketh 
men  high-priests  which  have  infirmity  ;  but  the 
word  of  the  oath,  which  was  since  the  law, 
maketh  the  Son,  who  is  consecrated  forever- 
more."   Heb.  vii.  28. 

II.  If  this  was  true  of  the  high-priest,  a  fortiori, 
it  was  true  of  all  other  provisions  of  the  Leviti- 
cal law.  "  If,  according  to  this,  even  after  the 
manifold  expiation  and  consecration  which  Aaron 
had  received  through  Moses  during  the  seven 
days,  he  had  still  to  enter  upon  his  service  with 
a  sin  offering  and  a  burnt  offering,  this  fact 
clearly  showed  that  the  offerings  of  the  law  could 
not  ensure  perfection  (Heb.  x.  1  sqq.)."  Keil. 

III.  The  commentary  upon  this  chapter  bring- 
ing out  its  doctrinal  significance,  is  to  be  found 
especially  in  the  Ep.  to  the  Heb.  As  other 
points  are  there  brought  out  strikingly,  so  is  this: 
"And  no  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  himself, 
but  he  that  is  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron.  So 
also  Christ  glorified  not  Himself  to  be  made  an 
high-priest."  Heb.  v.  4,  5. 


80 


LEVITICUS. 


IV.  In  the  appointment,  in  the  consecration, 
and  in  the  entrance  of  Aaron  upon  his  official 
duties,  his  mediatorial  functions  are  every  where 
distinctly  recognized.  Thus  is  the  necessity  set 
forth  of  a  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  and 
as  distinctly  as  was  possible  under  a  typical  sys- 
tem is  foreshadowed  the  office  of  Him  who  came 
to  be  man's  true  mediator  with  God. 

V.  In  every  possible  way,  by  dress,  by  ablu- 
tions, by  inscriptions  on  Aaron's  frontlet,  by 
varied  sacrifice,  the  necessity  of  holiness  in 
mau's  approach  to  God  is  declared.  Yet  this 
could  only  be  typically  attained  by  sinful  m  in. 
Very  plainly  therefore  did  Aaron  and  his  office 
point  forward  to  that  Seed  of  the  woman  who 
should  bruise  the  serpent's  head,  and  obtain  the 
fiual  victory  in  man's  long  struggle  with  the 
power  of  evil. 

VI.  In  the  order  of  the  offerings  of  Aaron  both 
for  himself  and  the  people  is  clearly  expressed 
the  order  of  the  steps  of  approach  to  God  ;  first, 
the  forgiveness  of  sin,  th^n  the  consecration 
completely  to  God,  and  after  this  communion 
with  Him,  and  blessing  from  Him. 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Moses,  the  great  leader  and  law-giver  of  Is- 
rael, retires  from  his  temporary  priestly  func- 
tions, and  delivers  them  over  to  Aaron  without 
a  murmur,  content  to  fulfil  the  Divine  will.  So 
John  the  Baptist  found  his  joy  fulfilled  in  that 


he  must  decrease  while  his  Master  increased 
(Jno.  iii.  30).  Moses  did  not  seek  to  retain  an 
office  to  which  God  had  not  called  him,  comp. 
Num.  xvi.;   Acts  xix.  13-15 ;   Heb.  v.  4  ;   Judell. 

The  "  glory  of  the  Lord  "  appeared,  and  was 
also  manifested  in  Solomon's  temple  ;  the  second 
temple  was  without  it,  and  yet  it  was  promised 
(Hag.  ii.  9)  that  the  glory  of  the  latter  temple 
should  be  greater  than  of  the  former.  This  was 
fulfilled  when  He  whose  glory  was  "  as  of  the 
Only  Begotten  of  the  Father"  appeared  in  His 
temple.  And  again,  after  the  consecration  of 
the  Great  High-Priest  on  Calvary,  and  His  en- 
trance by  His  ascension  into  the  true  sanctuary, 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  was  manifested  at  Pente- 
cost.   Wordsworth. 

As  Aaron  after  the  sacrifice  blessed  the  people 
before  entering  the  sanctuary  ;  so  Christ,  after 
His  sacrifice  upon  the  cross,  blessed  His  disci- 
ples (Luke  xxiv.  50)  before  passing  into  the 
heavens  to  continue  there  our  Priest  and  Inter- 
cessor forevermore. 

The  glory  appeared  and  the  fire  came  forth 
after  the  consecration  of  the  high-priest,  and 
after  his  sacrifice,  and  after  he  had  entered  the 
sanctuary  ;  even  as  the  fire  of  Pentecost  came 
after  Christ's  consecration  in  His  sacrifice  of 
Himself,  and  after  He  had  passed  into  the  hea- 
vens. And  as  the  fire  in  the  tabernacle  showed 
the  Divine  approbation  of  the  Levitical  system, 
so  that  of  Pentecost  expressed  His  good  pleasure 
in  the  Christian. 


THIRD    SECTION. 


The  Sin  and  the  Punishment  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  with  Instructions  founded  upon 

that  Event. 

Chapter  X.  1-20. 

1  And  Nadab  and  Abihu,  the1  sons  of  Aaron,  took  either  of  them  his  censer,  and 
put  fire  therein,2  and  put  incense  thereon,2  and  offered  strange  fire  before  the  Lord, 

2  which  he  commanded  them  not.     And  there  went  out  fire  from  the  Lord,  and 

3  devoured  them,  aud  they  died  before  the  Lord.  Then  Moses  said  unto  Aaron, 
This  is  it  that  the  Lord  spake,  saying,  I  will  be  sanctified  in  them  that  come  nigh 

4  me,  and  before  all  the  people  I  will  be  glorified.  And  Aaron  held  his  peace.  And 
Moses  called  Mishael  and  Elzaphau,  the  sons  of  Uzziel  the  uncle  of  Aaron,  and 
said  unto  them,  Come  near,  carry  your  brethren  from  before  the  sanctuary  out  of 

5  the  camp.  So  they  went  near,  and  carried3  them  in  their  coats  out  of  the  camp  ; 
as  Moses  had  said. 

6  And  Moses  said  unto  Aaron,  and  unto  Eleazer  and  unto  Ithamar,  his'  sons,  Un- 


TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  1.  Throe  MSS.,  followed  by  the  Vat.  LXX..  r»ad  "the  two  sons." 

2  Ver.  1.  In  the  Heb.  the  first  pronoun,  ;n3,  is  plural,  while  the  6econJ,  n'7>'.  is  singular.    16  MSS.,  the  Sam.  LXX. 

I    ■■  T  T     V   T 

and  Syr.  have  the  latter  in  the  plural. 

s  Ver.  5.  ONCH.    The  fuller  form  DPX    Wtifl  is  g'ven  in  the  Pam. 

—  T"  T 

«  Ver.  6.  One  MS.,  followed  by  the  LXX.  and  Syr.  specifies  "  his  remaining  sons." 


CHAP.  X.  1-20. 


81 


cover5  not  your  heads,  neither  rend  your  clothes  ;  lest  ye  die,  and  lest  wrath  come 

upon  all  the  people :  but  let  your  brethren,  the  whole  house  of  Israel,  bewail  the 
7  burning  which  the  Lord  hath  kindled.     And  ye  shall  not  go  out  from  the  door  of 

the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  last  ye  die :  for  the  anointing  oil  of  the  Lord 

is  upon  you.     And  they  did  according  to  the  word  of  Moses. 
8,  9   And  "the  Lord  spake  unto  Aaron,6  saying,  Do  not  drink  wine  nor  strong  drink, 

thou,  nor  thy  sons  with  thee,  when  ye  go  iuto  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation, 

10  lest  ye  die :  it  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  throughout  your  generations  :  and'  that  ye 
may  put  difference  between  holy  and  unholy  [common8],  aud  between  unclean  and 

11  clean  :  and  that  ye  may  teach  the  children  of  Israel  all  the  statutes  which  the  Lord 
hath  spoken  unto  them  by  the  hand  of  Moses. 

12  And  Moses  spake  unto  Aaron,  and  unto  Eleazar  and  unto  Ithamar,  his  sons  that 
were  left,  Take  the  meat  offering  [oblation9]  that  remaineth  of  the  offerings  of  the 
Lord  made  by  fire,  and  eat  it  without  leaven  beside  the  altar  :  for  it  is  most  holy : 

13  and  ye  shall  eat  it  in  the  [a]  holy  place,  because  it  is  thy  due,  and   thy  sons'  due, 

14  of  the  sacrifices  of  the  Lord  made  by  fire :  for  so  I  am  commanded.  And  the  wave 
breast  and  heave  shoulder  [leg10]  shall  ye  eat  in  a  clean  place ;  thou,  and  thy  sons, 
and  thy  daughters  with  thee  :  for  they  be  thy  due,  and  thy  sons'  due,  which&re  given 

15  out  of  the  sacrifices  of  peace  offerings  of  the  children  of  Israel.  The  heave  shoul- 
der [leg10]  and  the  wave  breast  shall  they  bring  with  the  offerings  made  by  fire  of 
the  fat,  to  wave  it  for  a  wave  offering  before  the  Lord;  and  it  shall  be  thine,  aud 
thy  sons'11  with  thee,  by  a  statute  for  ever ;  as  the  Lord  hath  commanded. 

16  And  Moses  diligently  sought  the  goat  of  the  sin  offering,  and,  behold,  it  was 
burnt:  and  he  was  angry  with  Eleazar  and  Ithamar,  the  sons  of  Aaron,  which  rvere 

17  left  alive,  saying,  Wherefore  have  ye  not  eateu  the  sin  offering  in  the  holy  place, 
seeing  it  is  most  holy,  aud  God  hath  given12  it  you  to  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  con- 

18  gregation,  to  make  atonement  for  them13  before  the  Lord?  Behold,  the  blood  of 
it  was  not  brought  in  within  the  holy  place:  ye  should  indeed  have  eaten  it  in  the 

19  [a"]  holy  place,  as  I16  commanded.  And  Aaron  said  unto  Moses,  Behold,  this  day 
have  they  offered  their  sin  offering  and  their  burnt  offering  before  the  Lord  ;  and 
such  things  have  befallen   me  :  and  if  I  had  eaten  the  sin  offering  to  day,  should 

20  it  have  been  accepted  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  ?  And  when  Moses  heard  that, 
he  was  content.18 

6  Ver.  6.  1£^3j"\~7N-    The  A.  V.,  ye  shall  not  uncover  w  quite  correct,  and  is  the  sense  given  in  most  of  the  ancient 

versions ;  but  the  Targ.  of  Onkelos,  followed  by  several  Jewish  and  other  commentators,  gives  the  very  different  sense  yt 
shall  not  let  your  hair  aroie,  del  ivtd  from  the  use  of  >'"*:}•    Num.  vi.  5  =  hair. 

•  Ver.  8.  Eight  MSS.  substitute  the  name  of  Moees  for  that  of  Aaron.    The  variation  is  unimportant ;  for,  as  Boothroyd 
suggests,  the  communication  toAaroo  may  have  been  made  through  Moses. 

I  Ver.  10.  The  ami  at  the  beginning  01  ver.  10  is  omitted  m  the  Sam.  and  all  other  ancient  versions  except  the  Vulgate. 

8  Ver.  10.  ^hn  is  in  contrast  to  t*/"ipn  and  means  simply  that  which  is  not  especially  consecrated.    The  word  com- 
mon conveys  the  sense  better  than  unholy. 

*  Ver.  12.  Oblation.     See  Textual  Note  2  on  ii.  1. 
10  Vers.  14,  IS.  Leg.     See  Text.  Note  "  on  vii.  32. 

II  Ver.  15.  The  Sam.  and  LXX.  add  and  thy  daughter**,  as  In  ver.  14. 
18  Ver.  17.  The  Syr.  reads  in  the  1st  person,  /  have  given. 

*3  Ver.  17.  Thirteen  MSS.  read  for  yea  in  the  2d  person. 

14  Ver.  18.  The  Masoretic  punctuation  of  t2"lp3  here  indicates  the  article ;  it  would  seem  proper,  however,  to  omit  it 

according  to  invariable  usage.    All  the  versions  make  a  distinction  between  the  sanctuary,  into  which  the  blood  had  not 
been  carried,  and  the  court  where  the  flesh  should  have  been  eaten,     We  can  only  express  this  by  a  change  of  the  article. 
1&  Ver.  18.  Most  of  the  versions  have  the  passive,  M  1  unu  command!  J,  and  the  LXX,  ov  rpo-nov  jioi  o-vvera^n  Kepios. 

15  Ver.  20.  Rosenmuller  notes  that  "^O'TI  scribilur  hie  dvo^iaAws  pro  2D"!"!-" 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

"We  Bhoulcl  expect  here  immediately  the 
description  of  a  great  thank  offering  feast  of 
the  people.  But  instead  of  this  we  are  told  of 
a  great  misfortune  which  closes  a  sacrificial 
feast  disturbed  in  the  very  beginning.  The 
story  is  not  of  the  thank  offering  feast  of  the 
people,  the  festal  meal  of  the  installation  of  the 
priests.  The  joy  of  the  people  was  very  soon 
destroyed  by  anxiety  and  fear ;  for  the  inade- 


quacy of  the  typical  sacrifice  has  soon  come  to 
light."  Lange. 

The  events  of  this  chapter  occurred  on  the 
same  day  as  those  of  the  preceding  (see  ver.  19), 
that  is  on  the  day  after  their  consecration  when 
Aaron  and  his  sons  first  entered  upon  the  dis- 
charge of  their  priestly  functions.  Moses  there- 
lore  still  appears  here,  as  in  ch.  ix.,  in  a  pecu- 
liar relation  as  introducing  the  new-made  priests 
to  their  duties,  taking  care  that  all  things  should 
be  rightly  done,  and  communicating  to  them 
further  instructions  (vers.  3,  S,  12,  llij. 


82 


LEVITICUS. 


Vers.  1—5.  The  sin,  death  and  burial  of  Nadab 
and  Abihu. 

Ver.  1.  Nadab  and  Abihu,  being  mentioned 
first  in  the  genealogies  (Ex.  vi.  23;  Num.  xxvi. 
60),  are  supposed  to  have  been  Aaron's  eldest 
sons.  They  had  beeu  selected  to  accompany 
Moses  and  Aaron  and  the  seventy  elders  in  the 
beatific  vision  of  Ex.  xxiv.  1,  9.  Wordsworth 
suggests  that  "perhaps  they  were  'exalted 
above  measure  through  the  abundance  of  their 
revelations'  (2  Cor.  xii.  7),  and  were  tempted 
to  imagine  that  they  were  not  bound  by  ordinary 
rules  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the 
priest's  office." 

His  censer. — Wiim.     This  is  the  first  time 

T  :  - 

the  word  is  translated  censer  in  the  A.  V.,  be- 
cause it  has  occurred  before  only  in  conned  ion 
with  the  golden  candlestick  (Ex.  xxv.  38; 
xxxvii.  23),  or  as  a  pan  for  receiving  the  ashes 
from  the  brazen  altar  (Ex.  xxvii.  3;  xxxviii.  3). 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  it  is 
rightly  translated  here  in  a  sense  in  which  it 
frequently  occurs  afterwards;  but  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  previous  mention  of  censers  adds  to 
the  probability  of  some  unrecorded  command 
having  already  been  given  in  regard  to  the 
offering  of  incense.  The  word  rntDDip  for  cen- 
ser is  much  later,  occurring  only  2  Chron.  xxvi. 
19;   Ezek.  viii.  11. 

Put  incense  thereon. — Incense  was  to  be 
burned  upon  the  golden  altar  twice  daily  ;  in 
the  morning,  when  the  lamps  of  the  golden  can- 
dlestick were  trimmed,  and  in  the  evening  when 
they  were  lighted  (Ex.  xxx.  7,  8).  It  does  not 
certainly  appear  from  the  narrative  at  what 
time  the  act  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  occurred;  but 
from  the  abundance  of  events  that  had  already 
occurred  on  this  day,  it.  is  not  unlikely  that  the 
latter  time  was  at  hand.  The  unseasonableness 
of  the  time  assigned  by  many  commentators 
(Keil  and  others)  as  a  part  of  their  sin  cannot 
therefore  be  maintained. — And  offered  strange 
fire. — The  sin  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  is  always 
described  in  the  same  terms  (Num.  iii.  4;  xxvi. 
61);  but  in  precisely  what  it  consisted  has  been 
the  occasion  of  much  difference  of  opinion.  By 
many  (Kurtz  and  others)  it  is  supposed  to  have 
consisted  in  the  offering  of  incense  not  prepared 
according  to  the  directions  given  in  Ex.  xxx.  34  ; 
but  this  would  rather  have  been  called  "strange 
incense"  as  in  Ex.  xxx.  9,  and  it  does  not  seem 
likely  that  the  new  priests,  who  had  now  been 
eight  days  in  the  court  of  the  tabernacle,  would 
have  had  ready  access  to  any  other  incense, 
whereas  other  fire  than  that  of  the  altar  must 
have  been  in  the  court  for  cooking  the  flesh  of 
the  sacrifices.  By  others  (as  Keil)  the  sin  is 
supposed  to  have  been  in  offering  the  incense  at 
a  time  not  appointed;  but  it  does  not  appear 
why  such  a  fault  should  have  been  described  as 
"strange  fire,"  and  moreover,  as  shown  above, 
it  seems  not  unlikely  that  it  was  actually  the 
proper  time  for  the  burning  of  the  evening  in- 
cense. Knobel  thinks  that  Nadab  and  Abihu 
proposed,  of  their  own  motion,  to  prepare  an 
incense  offering  to  accompany  the  shouts  of  the 
multitude  as  they  saw  the  Divine  fire  fall  upon 
the  sacrifice — which  may  or  may  not  have  been 
the  fact,  as  there  is  no  evidence  upon  the  point. 


Another  supposition  of  Knobel  must  be  abso- 
lutely rejected  as  at  variance  with  the  tenor  of 
the  narrative:  "or,  frightened  by  the  consu- 
ming fire,  ix.  24,  they  considered  an  appeasing 
of  God  necessary."  It  is  better  to  follow  the 
general  opinion,  and  take  the  expression  just  as 
it  is  given,  making  their  sin  to  have  consisted 
in  offering  strange  fire,  that  is  fire  other  than 
that  commanded.  "The  chief  thing  is  that  the 
strange  or  common  fire  forms  a  contrast  to  the 
fire  of  the  Sanctuary."  Lange.  So  Rosenmiiller, 
Outram  (1.  xvi.  13),  and  others.  In  vi.  12  it  is 
required  that  the  fire  should  be  always  burning 
upon  the  altar,  and  as  this  fire  was  for  the  con- 
sumption of  the  sacrifices,  it  would  naturally  be 
understood  for  the  burning  of  the  incense;  in 
xvi.  12  it  is  expressly  prescribed  for  the  incense 
on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  and  it  became  a 
part  of  the  symbolism  of  the  sanctuary  service 
(Rev.  viii.  6).  The  fact  that  no  command  on. 
this  point  of  detail  is  anywhere  recorded  does 
not  preclude  the  supposition  that  such  a  com- 
mand had  been  given.  At  all  events,  the  gene- 
ral principle  of  exact  conformity  to  the  Divine 
commands  should  have  prevented  Nadab  and 
Abihu  from  offering  "strange  "  or  uncommanded 
fire  before  the  Lord. 

As  to  the  causes  which  led  them  to  commit 
this  sin,  the  narrative  is  equally  silent ;  but  the 
connection  of  the  precept  in  ver.  9  with  this 
event  seems  to  imply  that  there  had  been  some 
violation  of  it.  (See  Targ.  Hieros.,  Nic.  de  Lyra, 
Patrick,  etc.)  This  might  have  concurred  with 
already  existing  spiritual  pride  and  self-will, 
or  have  temporarily  produced  them.  "  From 
vers.  8,  9,  it  is  likely  that  they  had  lost  their 
soberness  in  the  feast  which  had  begun." 
Lange.  But  however  this  may  have  been,  Von 
Gerlach's  remark  is  in  place:  "By  this  connec- 
tion is  taught,  that  as  no  external  event  was  to 
depress  with  grief  the  priest,  so  ought  he  to  ap- 
ply no  artificial  means  to  his  senses  to  produce 
exhilaration:  his  whole  thoughts  and  attention 
are  to  be  directed  to  the  sacred  offices  which 
are  commanded  him.  We  are  reminded  of  the 
antithesis,  Eph.  v.  18."  In  the  expression 
■which  he  commanded  them  not,  Rosen- 
miiller notes  a  /jeiuoic  of  frequent  occurrence, 
meaning  "  which  He  forbade." 

Ver.  2.  Fire  from  the  LORD.— Plainly  a 
miraculous  fire  as  that  which  consumed  the  sac- 
rifice (ix.  24).  It  did  not  consume  their  bodies, 
or  even  their  clothes  (ver.  5),  and  it  must  have 
been  by  an  inadvertence  that  Lange  says:  "If 
they  came  thus  strongly  excited  with  their 
glowing  fire  into  the  half  darkness  of  the  sanc- 
tuary, they  may  have  set  themselves  a-fire,  by 
which  they  were  destroyed." 

The  severity  of  this  judgment  may  be  com- 
pared with  that  upou  Uzza  (2  Sam.  vi.  7  ;  1 
Chron.  xiii.  10),  upon  the  Sabbath-breaker 
(Num.  xv.  32-36),  or  in  the  New  Testament  with 
that  upon  Anania-s  and  Sapphira.  In  all  these 
cases  the  punishment  was  not  determined  so 
much  by  the  aggravation  of  the  offence  itself  as 
by  the  necessity  of  vindicating  God's  majesty 
and  by  a  signal  judgment  on  the  first  occasion, 
preventing  a  repetition  of  the  offence.  In  such 
cases  it  is  very  necessary  to  separate  the  tem- 
poral from  the  thought  of  eternal  punishment. 


CHAP.  X.  1-20. 


83 


Philo  (as  quoted  by  Calmet)  undoubtedly  pushes 
this  too  far  when  he  says:  "The  priests  Nadab 
and  Abihu  died  that  they  might  live,  receiving 
an  incorruptible  for  their  mortal  life,  and  pass- 
ing from  creatures  to  their  Creator;"  but  yet 
we  may  not  argue  from  temporal  punishment  to 
eternal  doom,  and  the  recollection  of  this  may 
often  serve  to  remove  much  of  the  inscrutable- 
ness  of  the  Divine. judgments. 

Ver.  3.  This  it  is  that  the  LORD  spake 
— not  in  precisely  these  words,  but  again  and 
again  in  their  substance.  See  Ex.  xxix.  44; 
xix.  22 ;  Lev.  viii.  33.  Yet  the  very  words  may 
have  been  spoken,  although  not  recorded,  as  in 
Ex.  xxxiii.  12.  Priests  are  continually  desig- 
nated as  those  that  "come  nigh"  to  God  (e.g. 
Ezek.  xlii.  13). — I  will  be  sanctified. — Comp. 
Ex.  xix.  4,  5.  "  The  law  of  the  sanctuary  is 
proclaimed  to  mean:  that  all  approach  to  Jeho- 
vah of  those  who  draw  near  to  Him,  of  the 
priests  in  the  holy  acts  of  sacrifice,  has  the  pur- 
pose of  showing  forth  Jehovah  in  His  holiness, 
!.  e.  in  His  pure  and  strict  and  all-folly-abhor- 
ring personality;  and  this  hallowing  of  His 
name  in  highest  solitude  should  have  the  result 
of  revealing  Him  before  all  the  people  in  His 
majesty,  in  the  glory  of  His  manifestation.  The 
pure  and  brilliant  exterior  of  the  Cultus  depends 
in  its  puriiy  and  chasteness  upon  the  most  per- 
fect interior  purity  and  truth.  But  when  Moses 
applies  this  law  to  the  present  mishap,  it  ex- 
presses the  truth  that  it  is  fulfilled  not  only  in 
the  pure  service  of  God  of  good  priests,  but  also 
in  the  unclean  service  of  evil  priests.  Should 
these,  for  example,  bring  before  the  Lord,  in 
passion  or  excitement,  strange  fire,  fire  of  the 
intoxication  of  extravagance,  fire  of  fanaticism, 
they  should  be  seized  and  consumed  by  that  fire 
changed,  as  it  were,  into  the  fire  of  the  judgment 
of  Jehovah  ;  and  also  by  such  judgments  on  such 
priests  Jehovah  should  be  glorified  before  all 
His  people — as  it  has  always  clearly  been,  espe- 
cially to-day.  How  many  a  Protestant  zealot 
has  screamed  himself  dead  in  the  sanctuary  ! 
But  the  mediaeval  priests  began  to  burn  them- 
selves when  they  kindled  the  flames  of  the  pyres." 
Lange. 

Aaron  held  his  peace  means  not  only  that 
he  abstained  from  the  customary  wails  and  cries 
of  the  mourner;  but  that  he  uttered  no  murmur 
against  the  judgment  of  God,  or  remonstrance 
against  the  law  as  set  forth  by  Moses.  This 
may  perhaps  have  been  made  easier  to  him  by 
the  stunning  effect  of  so  great  and  sudden  a 
bereavement. 

Ver.  4.  The  sons  of  Uzziel. — From  Ex.  vi. 
18  it  would  appear  that  Uzziel  was  the  youngest 
of  Aaron's  three  uncles.  Brethren  is  used,  as 
so  frequently  in  Scripture,  in  the  sense  of  kins- 
men. Elzaphan  was  the  "chief"  of  his  father's 
house,  Num.  iii.  30. — From  before  the  sanc- 
tuary.— Notwithstanding  the  Jewish  tradition 
that  they  perished  within  the  sanctuary,  it  ap- 
pears'from  this  expression  that  the  Divine  judg- 
ment fell  upon  them  while  they  were  still  in  the 
court.  "  They  buried  the  dead  in  their  linen 
coats:  these  priestly  garments  had  been  defiled 
with  the  dead  bodies,  and  were  buried  with 
them.  There  is  nothing  else  degrading  in  the 
form  of  burial.     The  burial  without  the  camp 


was  common  for  all  corpses.  The  buriers  were 
also  reminded  that  the  dead  were  their  breth- 
ren." Lange.  This  was  now  the  eighth  day  of 
the  mouth ;  the  Passover  lamb  was  to  be  slain 
on  the  14th.  Mishael  and  Elzaphan  were  there- 
fore unable  to  keep  the  Passover  on  account  of 
their  defilement  by  a  dead  body,  for  this  lasted 
seven  days  (Num.  xix.  11-13).  In  view  of  these 
facts  Blunt  suggests  (  Undesigned  Coincidences,  I. 
14)  that  it  was  the  case  of  these  Levites  which 
was  considered  and  provided  for  by  the  law  of 
the  Passover  of  the  second  mouth,  Num.  ix.  6-12. 

Vers.  6,  7.  All  signs  of  mourning  are  forbid- 
den to  the  priests.  By  a  subsequent  enactment 
these  were  in  all  cases  perpetually  forbidden  to 
the  high-priest  (xxi.  10-12),  but  in  moderation 
allowed  to  the  ordinary  priests  for  those  nearest 
of  kin  (ib.  1-6).  Here,  however,  they  are  abso- 
lutely forbidden  to  both,  doubtless  because  "any 
manifestation  of  grief  on  account  of  the  death 
that  had  occurred  would  have  indicated  dissatis- 
faction with  the  judgment  of  God"  (Keil);  "be- 
cause, from  their  office,  they  were  especially 
concerned   as  consecrated  priests  in  outwardly 

maintaining  the  honor  of  Jehovah The 

people,  on  the  other  hand,  as  not  formally  stand- 
ing so  near  to  Jehovah,  were  permitted  to 
bewail  the  burning  which  the  Lord  had 
kindled"   (Cook). 

Uncover  not  your  heads. — This  is  the 
sense  of  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.,  and  means  that 
they  were  not  to  remove  their  priestly  turbans, 
as  they  were  still  to  go  directly  on  with  their 
priestly  functions.  The  word  means  literally  to 
set  free,  and  it  may  therefore  have  here  the  added 
sense,  "do  not  go  about  with  your  hair  dishe- 
velled, or  flowing  free  and  in  disorder  (xiii.  45)." 
Keil.  Both  this  and  the  rending  of  the  clothes 
were  among  the  most  common  signs  of  mourning 
among  the  Jews. 

Lest  wrath  come  upon  all  the  people. — 
They  were  to  observe  this  precept  not  only  for 
their  own  sake — lest  ye  die — but  also  for  the 
people's.  It  has  already  been  shown  (iv.  3)  that 
the  sin  of  the  high-priest,  as  their  theocratic 
head,  brought  guilt  upon  the  people,  and  in- 
volved them  in  the  consequent  punishment ;  in 
this  case  emphatically  it  must  do  so,  because 
Aaron  and  his  remaining  sons  were  now  the  sole 
appointed  mediators  with  God,  and  any  mark 
of  dissatisfaction  with  His  judgments  would 
have  placed  them  in  an  attitude  of  opposition  to 
God. 

Though  the  priests  might  not  turn  aside  from 
their  sacred  functions,  yet  Nadab  and  Abihu 
were  not  to  go  unmourned.  The  whole  house 
of  Israel  were  to  bewail  the  burning — not 
indeed  as  murmuring  against  the  Divine  judg- 
ment, but  yet  as  recognizing  that  a  sad  calamity 
had  befallen  them. 

Ver.  7.  Ye  shall  not  go  out — viz.:  for  the 
purpose  of  accompanying  the  remains  of  the 
slain  priests  to  their  grave,  and  in  any  way 
ceasing  from  their  sacred  functions  on  their  ac- 
count. A  like  command  is  made  of  perpetual 
obligation  upon  the  high-priest  in  xxi.  12.  The 
reason  is  given — for  the  anointing  oil  of  the 
LORD  is  upon  you;  consecrated  wholly  to 
His  service,  they  might  not  turn  aside  from  it 
for  any  purpose.     Comp.  Matt.  viii.  22. 


84 


LEVITICUS. 


Ver.  8.  Spake  unto  Aaron.— Either  through 
Moses  (see  Textual  note  6);  or  else  Aaron,  being 
now  fully  constituted  high-priest,  and  having 
shown  his  submission  in  what  had  just  occurred, 
was  made  directly  the  recipient  of  a  Divine  com- 
munication concerning  the  duties  of  the  priests. 

Vers.  9-11.  Strong  drink. — Ileb.  "Otf  used 
apparently  in  Num.  xxviii.  7  as  a  synonym  for 
wine,  but  generally  taken  for  an  intoxicating 
drink  prepared  from  grain  or  honey,  or  espe- 
cially from  palms.  The  prohibition  of  wine  and 
strong  drink  to  the  priests  is  only  in  connection 
with  their  service  in  the  tabernacle.  For  the 
present  this  must  have  amounted  to  an  almost 
absolute  prohibition,  as  the  service  of  Aaron  and 
his  two  sons  could  have  been  little  less  than  con- 
tinuous; but  as  the  priesthood  multiplied,  of 
course  the  time  of  service  for  each  of  them  was 
reduced.  The  connection  of  this  precept  with 
what  goes  before  and  what  follows  seems  almost 
necessarily  to  imply  that  it  was  called  forth  by 
some  violation  of  it  on  the  part  of  Nadab  and 
Abihu.  This  supposition,  Lange  says,  "is  made 
probable  by  the  otherwise  unexplained  command 
here  given,  and  thus  indeed  the  outward  strange 
fire  was  only  the  symbol  of  the  inner  strange  fire 
of  wine-produced  enthusiasm,  which  so  often  can 
mingle  itself  in  pious  and  animated  speeches  and 
poems,  by  which  indeed  holy  and  unholy  things 
are  confused."  The  object  of  the  command  is 
expressed  in  vers.  10,  11:  that  the  mind  of  the 
priests  might  be  clear  in  the  exercise  of  their 
own  duties,  and  in  the  instruction  of  the  people 
in  regard  to  theirs. 

Vers.  12-15.  The  oblation  that  remaineth 

from  the  sacrifices  of  the  day  mentioned  in  ix. 
17.  Eat  it  in  a  holy  place — as  has  been  so 
often  before  commanded  in  regard  to  those  things 
which  might  be  eaten  only  by  the  priests — not  in 
the  sanctuary,  but  in  a  place  provided  for  the 
purpose  in  the  court — LXX. :  h  t6-l>  dylu.  Af- 
ter this  followed  the  holy  meal  upon  the  priests' 
portion  of  the  peace  offerings  (vers.  14,  15),  eat- 
en with  their  families  without  the  court,  in  any 
clean  place. 

Vers.  16-18.  The  goat  of  the  sin  offering 

had  indeed  been  offered  for  the  whole  congrega- 
tion (ix.  3),  but  its  blood  had  not  been  brought 
within  the  sanctuary.  Under  these  circumstances 
Moses  emphatically  declares,  and  Aaron  tacitly 
acknowledges,  that  its  flesh  should,  under  ordi- 
nary circumstances,  have  been  eaten  by  the 
priests,  instead  of  being  burned.  Origen  cha- 
racterizes it  as  being  in  consequence  an  imper- 
fect sacrifice.  This  shows  distinctly  that  the  law 
for  the  burning  of  the  sin  offering  for  the  whole 
congregation  (iv.  19,  12)  turned  upon  the  treat- 
ment of  the  blood,  as  Moses  shows  in  ver.  18,  and 
not  upon  the  fact  that  it  was  offered  for  all  the 
people.  It  is  said  that  Moses  was  angry  with 
Eleazar  and  Ithamar,  while  Aaron  is  not 
mentioned ;  doubtless  because  the  fault  was  with 
them  as  the  ordinary  priests,  to  whom  this  duty 
belonged,  and  not  to  the  high-priest.  Lange : 
"Eleazar  and  Ithamar  also,  the  two  remaining 
eons  of  Aaron,  have  apparently  made  an  error  in 
form  ;  that  is,  they  ought  to  have  eaten  this  flesh 
of  the  goat  of  the  sin  offering  (not  their  own,  but 
that  of  the  people)   in  a  holy  place  as  being  a 


most  holy  thing.  This  they  had  neglected;  still 
more,  they  had  burnt  the  goat.  But  if  they 
would  thus  treat  the  sin  goat  of  the  people,  as  if 
the  ritual  for  the  sin  offering  of  bullocks  was  to 
be  applied,  they  ought  also  to  have  brought  its 
blood  into  the  sanctuary;  but  they  had  not  done 
this,  and  thus  had  violated  the  ritual  in  two 
ways"  [i.e.,  in  one  or  other  of  the  two  ways; 
but  as  they  had  treated  the  blood  exactly  as  they 
were  commanded,  their  fault  consisted  only  in 
the  wrong  treatment  of  the  flesh].  "  In  other 
words:  since  the  blood  had  been  poured  out  at 
the  altar  in  the  court,  they  must  also  in  conse- 
quence eat  the  flesh  of  the  sin  offering,  since  it 
was  given  them  as  a  right  from  Jehovah,  as  a 
recompense  because  they  had  as  priests  to  bear 
the  misdeeds  of  the  congregation,  and  to  make 
atonement  before  Jehovah.  But  at  this  reproach 
of  Moses,  Aaron  knew  how  to  excuse  himself  anj 
his  sons.  In  the  first  place,  his  sons  had  done 
their  duty  in  regard  to  their  own  sin  and  burnt 
offering.  In  the  second  place,  this  fearful  acci- 
dent had  happened  to  him  and  them,  and  made 
them  incapable  of  eating.  He  appeals  to  feel- 
ing: would  it  please  Jehovah  if  he  should  eat  in 
such  a  frame  of  mind?  This  time  Aaron  has 
conquered  Moses.  The  first  violation  of  the  law 
proceeded  from  gross  disrespect  of  the  law  in 
carnal  conduct;  this  second  violation  proceeded 
from  a  righteous  spiritual  elevation  above  the 
letter  which  even  Moses  must  allow." 

Ver.  17.  To  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  con- 
gregation.— This  expression,  however  difficult 
it  may  be  to  define  the  exact  limits  of  its  mean- 
ing, certainly  makes  two  points  clear:  first,  that 
the  eating  of  the  flesh  of  the  ordinary  sin  offering 
by  the  priests  was  an  essential  part  of  its  ritual; 
and  second,  that  the  priests,  in  receiving  the 
sacrifice  and  undertaking  to  make  expiation  for 
sins,  did  act  in  a  mediatorial  capacity.  "The 
very  eating  of  the  people's  sin  offering  argued 
the  sins  of  the  people  were  in  some  sort  laid  upon 
the  priests,  to  be  taken  away  by  them."  Patrick. 
This  eating,  however,  does  not  constitute  with 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  "a  double  atone- 
menent,"  to  which  Lange  rightly  objects;  but  is 
simply  a  lesser  part  of  the  one  atonement  of 
which  the  blood  was  the  more  essential  portion. 
The  office  of  the  priests,  receiving  the  victim  at 
the  people's  hands,  was  with  it  to  make  an  atone- 
ment or  "covering"  for  the  people's  sins. 
Having  undertaken  this,  the  responsibility  for 
those  sins  in  a  certain  sense  rested  upon  them; 
they  must  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  congre- 
gation.— This  was  only  possible  to  do  by  a  strict 
observance  of  the  Divine  appointment,  since  the 
sacrifice  could  have  no  inherent  efficacy.  They 
must  both  sprinkle  the  blood  and  eat  the  flesh. 
Without  the  latter,  "the  sacrifice  was  imperfect 
and  the  sin  remained."   Origen. 

Ver.  19.  In  Aaron's  excuse  that  "spiritual 
elevation  above  the  letter"  which  Lange  has 
noted  becomes  very  plain.  It  is  striking  to  find 
this  not  only  in  the  law,  but  in  regard  to  the 
very  centre  of  the  law,  the  sin  sacrifice,  and 
that,  too,  in  the  very  first  moment  of  its  insti- 
tution. On  Aaron's  unfitness  now  to  eat  this 
offering  comp.  Hos.  ix.  4. 

Ver.  20.  He  was  content. — "  Moses  admit- 
ted Aaron's  plea,  but  it  is  not  stated  whether  he 


CHAP.  X.  1-20. 


85 


was  conscious  tbat  he  had  himself  spoken  hastily 
and  now  conceded  the  point  at  issue  (as  we  find 
him  doing  on  another  occasion  in  reference  to 
tbe  settlement  of  the  two  tribes  and  a  half.  Num. 
xxxii.  6),  allowing  that  the  priests  had  done 
what  was  in  itself  right,  as  S.  Augustin,  the  later 
Targums,  Kurtz,  and  others,  interpret  the  pas- 
sage; or  whether  he  yielded  out  of  sympathy 
with  Aaron's  natural  feelings.  The  latter  alter- 
native is  perhaps  the  more  probable  one." 
Clark.  But  neither  alternative  is  necessary. 
Both  here  and  in  the  case  cited  from  Numbers 
(parallel  to  which  also  is  Josh.  xxii.  10-31) 
Moses  remonstrated  against  an  apparent  disre- 
gard of  the  command  of  God  ;  he  was  appeased 
when  assured  that  no  disregard  was  intended, 
and  that  in  this  case  the  act  was  exceptional  un- 
der entirely  exceptional  circumstances. 

DOCTRINAL   AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  Self-chosen  service  (kfie~Ao6f>7]aneia,  Col.  ii.  23) 
is  displeasing  to  God,  as  a  substitution  of  what 
He  has  not  commanded  for  what  He  has  com- 
manded. It  is  of  the  nature  of  rebellion  and  is 
so  regarded  by  Him.  "  The  symbolical  meaning 
of  this  history  is  very  deep  and  comprehensive. 
Every  gift  to  God,  every  sacrifice  for  Him,  every 
act  of  zeal  in  His  service,  however  it  might 
otherwise  outwardly  be  right,  is  displeasing  to 
the  Lord  so  soon  as  the  fire  of  self-denial  ceases 
to  originate  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  1  Cor.  xiii.  3." 
0.  von  Gerlach. 

II.  Nadab  and  Abihu  were  honored  with  being 
"brought  near"  to  God.  and  were  the  appointed 
persons  to  burn  incense  in  the  proper  way. 
They  perverted  their  office  and  abused  their  pri- 
vilege, and  they  perished.  So  generally  God's 
gifts  perverted  work  harm  to  him  who  perverts 
them,  and  this  harm  is  intensified  in  proportion 
to  the  greatness  of  tbe  gift,  2  Cor.  ii.  lii. 

III.  Hence  comes  the  general  principle  that 
religious  responsibility  is  proportioned  to  reli- 
gious privilege  (ver.  3) — a  principle  often  in- 
sisted upon  in  our  Lord's  teaching. 

IV.  Under  the  old  covenant,  death,  a9  the  fruit 
of  sin,  brought  defilement  by  its  touch.  Even 
father  and  brothers  might  not  touch  the  dead 
bodies  of  the  fallen,  lest  they  should  be  defiled. 
Under  the  new  covenant,  sin  has  been  conquered 
by  Him  who  knew  no  sin,  and  death  by  Him  who 
rose  from  the  grave.  "No  longer,  therefore, 
under  the  Gospel,  is  death  an  unclean  thing. 
"Blessed  are  the  dead  that  die  in  the  Lord," 
Rev.  xiv.  13.  The  Levitical  law,  by  its  treatment 
of  death  ami  burial,  shows  us  our  condition  by 
nature  in  contrast  with  the  blessings  given  by 
Him  who  is  "the  Resurrection  and  the  Life." 
Wordsworth. 

V.  It  was  required  of  the  Levitical  priests  that 
in  their  service  in  the  sanctuary  they  should 
drink  neither  wine  nor  strong  drink.  Similarly 
St.  Paul  provides  (1  Tim.  Hi.  2,  8)  that  the 
Christian  ministry  must  be  "not  given  to  wine," 
and  when  requiring  it  for  his  infirmities,  should 
use  it  moderately  (ib.  v.  23).  Theodoret.  The 
service  of  God  must  be  "a  reasonable  service," 
with  faculties  unimpaired,  and  not  disturbed  by 
artificial  stimulants. 

VI.  When  the   priests  are   said    (ver.  17)  to 


bear  the  iniquity  of  the  congregation,  the 

temporary  and  typical  character  of  the  Levitical 
system  is  at  once  manifest.  It  was  plainly  im- 
possible for  men,  who  yet  had  to  offer  sacrifices 
for  their  own  sins,  to  bear  the  sins  of  others,  and 
so  present  them  as  holy  before  God,  except  as 
they  represented  something  else,  viz.:  the  great 
High  Priest  who  should  atone  for  the  sin  of  the 
world. 

VII.  The  burning,  instead  of  eating,  the  flesh 
of  the  sin  offering,  finally  acquiesced  in  by 
Moses,  is  instructive  doctrinally  as  showing  eveu 
in  the  most  rigid  part  of  the  Levitical  law,  "a 
certain  freedom  in  the  arrangement  of  the  minor 
details,  while  the  substance  of  the  rules  is  kept 
inviolate.  It  is  one  of  the  examples  we  occa- 
sionally meet  of  a  distinction  being  judiciously 
and  honestly  made  between  the  letter  and  the 
spirit  of  a  law."  Murphy.  Under  the  Old  Tes- 
tament as  under  the  New,  God  desires  "mercy 
and  not  sacrifice"  (Hos.  vi.  6;  Matt.  ix.  13; 
xii.  7). 

HOJIILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

In  this  chapter,  instead  of  the  expected  festi- 
vities consequent  upon  the  inauguration  of  the 
new  priesthood,  we  find  a  fearful  judgment;  so 
the  sin  of  man  ever  comes  in  to  mar  the  good 
work  of  God  and  turn  to  wormwood  His  cup  of 
blessing.  By  this  fearful  example  all  will-wor- 
ship is  shown  to  be  displeasing — all  attempt  to 
serve  God  in  opposition  to  the  ways  of  His  ap- 
pointment. "  They  also  offer  a  strange  fire,  who 
offer  any  thing  of  their  own  to  God  without  truly 
and  humbly  acknowledging  that  they  have  re- 
ceived all  from  God."  Estius.  "When  we  bring 
zeal  without  knowledge,  misconceits  of  faith, 
carnal  affections,  the  devices  of  our  will-wor- 
ship, superstitious  devotions  into  God's  service, 
we  bring  common  fire  to  His  altar.  These  flames 
were  never  of  His  kindling;  He  hates  both  al- 
tar, fire,  priest,  and  sacrifice."   Bp.  Hall. 

The  greatness  of  the  punishment  was  in  pro- 
portion to  the  appointed  nearness  to  God  of 
those  who  had  offended.  Privilege  always 
brings  responsibility.  The  judgment  on  Chora- 
zin  and  Bethsaida  must  be  heavier  than  upon 
Sodom  and  Gomorrha.  Compare  Heb.  ii.  3 ; 
xii.   25. 

God  may  use  the  same  means  for  showing  His 
love  and  His  anger.  He  consumed  the  sacrifice 
by  fire  ;  He  slew  Nadab  and  Abihu  by  fire.  Tbe 
result,  to  us  of  His  action  depends  on  our  attitude 
towards  Him.  The  same  Gospel  is  a  "savor  of 
life  unto  life"  and  of  "death  unto  death." 
Again  :  He  often  uses  for  man's  punishment  the 
very  instrument  of  man's  sin;  these  men  sinned 
by  fire  and  perished  by  fire ;  so  also  the  compa- 
nions of  Korah,  Num.  xvi.  35.  So  under  the 
laws  of  His  Providence  are  men's  passions  made 
the  means  of  punishing  them,  and  often  the  ob- 
jects of  unlawful  ambition  or  desire,  when  at- 
tained, become  the  very  scourges  of  those  who 
sought  them. 

Aaron  held  his  peace,  as  the  righteous  must 
needs  do  before  the  judgments  of  God,  however 
distressing.  See  Job  i.  22;  Ps.  xxxix.  9.  There 
can  be  no  hope  and  no  comfort  in  the  world  if  we 
may  rightfully  murmur  at  the  doings  of  "the 
Judge  of  all  the  earth." 


LEVITICUS. 


The  touch  of  the  dead  communicated  defile- 
ment, but  the  touch  of  the  Giver  of  life  caused 
him  who  was  borne  out  upon  the  bier  to  arise 
(Luke  vii.  14),  and  the  damsel  who  slept  in 
death  to  arise  and  walk  (Mark  v.  42).  Words- 
worth.    Thus  does  the  Antitype  excel  the  type. 

Aaron  and  his  surviving  sons  might  not  leave 
the  sanctuary  to  mourn  those  who  had  fallen,  but 
all  Israel  might  bewail  them;  so  is  the  immedi- 
ate service  of  God  more  pressing  than  all  else ; 
what  may  be  right  at  another  time,  or  to  other 
persons,  must  be  foregone  by  those  who  have  a 
duty  to  God  with  which  it  interferes.  His  ser- 
vice is  the  prime  object  to  which  all  other  things 
must  conform  themselves. 

The  priests'  fervor  is  not  to  come  of  wine  or 
strong  drink.     In  the  service  of  God  they  who 


draw  near  to  Him  have  need  of  all  the  calmness 
and  clearness  of  their  minds,  lest  they  do  Him 
dishonor  while  they  profess  to  serve  Him.  The 
excitement  of  worship,  which  comes  of  the  abuse 
of  His  gifts,  though  showing  itself  in  eloquence 
or  in  more  than  natural  zeal,  is  not  pleasing  to 
Him. 

From  the  fault  of  the  priests  in  not  eating  the 
flesh  of  the  sin  offering,  Theodoret  thus  reasons 
of  the  duty  of  the  Christian  minister  :  "  Hence  we 
learn  that  we  who  eat  of  those  things  which  are 
offered  by  the  people,  and  do  not  live  according 
to  the  law,  nor  diligently  pray  to  God  for  them, 
will  bring  down  punishment  from  God;"  and 
Origen  says  that  it  behooves  the  priest  first  to 
ma  ke  himself  acceptable  to  God  before  he  presumes 
to  seek  from  Him  acceptance  for  the  people. 


PART  THIRD.    THE  LAWS  OF  PURITY". 


Chapters  XI. — XV. 


"  The  Preliminary  Conditions  of  Sacrifice :  the  Typical  Cleanness 
and  Purifying." — Lange. 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  CLEAN  AND  UNCLEAN  ANIMALS— AND  ON 
DEFILEMENT  BY  CONTACT. 


There  has  been  no  little  debate  as  to  the  origin 
and  ground  of  the  distinction  between  clean  and 
unclean  animals.  Such  a  question  can  only  be 
settled  historically.  In  Gen.  vii.  2  Noah  is  di- 
rected to  take  into  the  ark  "of  every  clean  beast 
by  sevens,  the  male  and  his  female,"  while  "of 
beasts  that  are  not  clean  by  two,  the  male  and 
his  female."  There  was  then  already  a  recog- 
nized distinction,  and  this  distinction  had  no- 
thing to  do  with  the  use  of  animal  food,  since 
this  had  not  yet  been  allowed  to  man.  After  the 
flood,  when  animal  food  was  given  to  man  (Gen. 
ix.  3),  it  was  given  without  limitation.  ''Every 
moving  thing  that  liveth  shall  be  meat  for  you; 
even  as  the  green  herb  have  I  given  you  all 
things."  It  may  therefore  be  confidently  af- 
firmed that  this  distinction  did  not  have  its  ori- 
gin and  ground  in  the  suitableness  or  unsuitable- 
ness  of  different  kinds  of  animal  food,  as  has 
been  contended  by  many.  Neither  could  it  pos- 
sibly have  been  founded  in  any  considerations 
peculiar  to  the  chosen  people,  since  it  is  here 
found  existing  so  many  ages  before  the  call  of 
Abraham.  Immediately  after  the  flood,  how- 
ever, we  have  a  practical  application  of  the  dis- 
tinction which  seems  to  mark  its  object  with  suf- 
ficient plainness:   "Noah  builded  an  altar  unto 


the  Lord  ;  and  took  of  every  clean  beast,  and 
of  every  clean  fowl,  and  offered  burnt  offerings 
on  the  altar"  (Gen.  viii.  20).  The  original  dis- 
tinction must  therefore  be  held  to  have  been  be- 
tween animals  fit  and  unfit  for  sacrifice  (comp. 
Calvin  in  Lev.  xi.  1).  On  what  ground  the  se- 
lection was  originally  made  for  sacrifice  is  wholly 
unknown  ;  but  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the 
same  kind  of  animals  which  were  "clean"  in 
the  time  of  Noah  were  included  in  the  list  of  the 
clean  under  the  Levitical  law.  Many  of  the  lat- 
ter, however,  were  not  allowable  for  sacrifice  un- 
der the  same  law,  nor  is  it  likely  that  they  ever 
were;  on  the  other  hand,  all  were  admissible  for 
food  in  Noah's  time,  while  under  the  Levitical 
law  many  are  forbidden.  While,  therefore,  the 
original  distinction  must  be  sought  in  sacrificial 
use,  it  is  plain  that  the  details  of  this  distinction 
are  largely  modified  under  the  Levitical  law  pre- 
scribing the  animals  that  may  be  allowed  for 
food. 

When  inquiry  is  now  made  as  to  the  grounds 
of  this  modification,  the  only  reason  given  in  the 
law  itself  is  comprehensive  (Lev.  xi.  43-47;  xx. 
24-20;  Deut.  xiv.  21):  "For  I  am  the  Loed  your 
God  ;  ye  shall  therefore  sanctify  yourselves,  and 
ye  shall  be  holy  ;  for  I  am  holy."     "  I  am  tha 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  CLEAN  AND  UNCLEAN  ANIMALS. 


87 


Lord  your  God,  which  have  separated  you  from 
other  people."  This  points  plainly  to  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  Israelites  by  their  prescribed  laws 
of  food  from  other  nations  ;  and  it  is  indisputa- 
ble that  the  effect  of  these  laws  was  to  place  al- 
most insurmountable  impediments  in  the  way  of 
familiar  social  intercourse  between  the  Israelites 
and  the  surrounding  heathen.  When  this  sepa- 
ration was  to  be  broken  down  in  the  Christian 
Church,  an  intimation  to  that  effect  could  not  be 
more  effectively  conveyed  than  by  the  vision  of 
St.  Peter  of  a  sheet  let  down  "wherein  were  all 
manner  of  four-footed  beasts,  and  .creeping 
things,  and  fowls  of  the  air,"  with  the  com- 
mand, "Rise,  Peter,  kill  and  eat"  (Acts  x. 
13).  The  effectiveness  of  the  separation,  how- 
ever, is  to  be  sought  in  the  details,  not  in 
the  general  character  of  the  distinction,  as  it 
is  now  well  known  that  the  ordinary  diet  of  the 
Egyptians  and  other  nations  of  antiquity  was 
substantially  the  same  with  that  of  the  Israel- 
ites. Various  reasons  given  by  the  fathers  and 
others,  with  replies  showing  their  fallacy,  may 
be  found  in  Spencer,  de  Ug.  Ilebr.  I.  c.  vii.,  \  1, 
what  he  considers  the  true  reasons  (seven  in 
number)  being  given  in  the  following  section. 
Comp.  also  Calvin  in  Lev.  xi.  1. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  distinction  of 
clean  and  unclean  animals  has  place  only  at 
their  death.  All  living  animals  were  alike  clean, 
and  the  Hebrew  had  no  scruple  in  handling  the 
living  ass  or  even  the  dog.  The  lion  and  the 
eagle,  too,  as  has  been  well  observed  by  Clark, 
were  used  in  the  most  exalted  symbolism  of  pro- 
phetic imagery.  But  as  soon  as  the  animals 
were  dead,  a  question  as  to  their  cleanness 
arose;  this  depended  on  two  points:  a)  the 
manner  of  the  animal's  death;  and  b)  the  na- 
ture of  the  animal  itself.  All  animals  whatever 
which  died  of  themselves  were  unclean  to  the 
Israelites,  although  they  might  be  given  or  sold 
to  "strangers"  (Deut.  xiv.  21),  and  the  touch 
of  their  carcasses  communicated  defilement 
(Lev.  xi.  39,  40).  This  then  was  one  broad  di-t- 
tinction  of  the  law,  and  was  evidently  based 
upon  the  fact  that  from  such  animals  the  blood 
had  not  been  withdrawn. 

But  a  difference  is  further  made  between  ani- 
mals, even  when  properly  slaughtered.  In  a 
very  general  way,  the  animals  allowed  are  such 
as  have  been  generally  recognized  among  all 
nations  and  in  all  ages  as  most  suitably  forming 
the  staple  of  animal  food ;  yet  the  law  cannot 
be  considered  as  founded  upon  hygienic  or  any 
other  principles  of  universal  application,  since 
no  such  distinction  was  recognized  in  the  grant 
to  Noah.  Moreover,  the  obligation  of  its  obser- 
vance was  expressly  declared  to  have  been  abro- 
gated by  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  Acts  xv. 
The  distinction  was  therefore  temporary,  and 
peculiar  to  the  chosen  people.  Its  main  object, 
as  already  shown,  was  to  keep  them  a  separate 
people,  and  it  is  invested  with  the  solemnity  of 
a  religious  observance.  In  providing  regula- 
tions for  this  purpose,  other  objects  were  doubt- 
less incidentally  regarded,  such  as  laws  of  health, 
elc,  some  of  which  are  apparent  upon  the  sur- 
face, while  others  lie  hidden  in  our  ignorance 
of  local  customs  and  circumstances. 


Before  closing  this  note  it  is  worthy  of  remark 
that  the  dualistio  notions  which  formed  the  basis 
of  the  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean 
animals  among  the  Persians  were  absolutely 
contradicted  by  the  theology  of  the  Israelites. 
Those  animals  were  clean  among  the  Parsees 
which  were  believed  to  have  been  created  by 
Ormuzd,  while  those  which  proceeded  from  tho 
evil  principle,  Ahriman,  were  unclean.  The 
Hebrews,  on  the  contrary,  were  most  emphati- 
cally taught  to  refer  the  origin  of  all  things  to 
Jehovah,  and  however  absolute  might  be  the 
distinction  among  animals,  it  was  yet  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  various  works  of  the  one  Cre- 
ator. 

The  general  principles  of  determination  of 
clean  animals  were  the  same  among  the  Israel- 
ites as  among  other  ancient  nations;  in  quadru- 
peds, the  formation  of  the  foot  and  the  method 
of  mastication  and  digestion;  among  birds,  the 
rejection  as  unclean  of  birds  of  prey  ;  and  among 
fish,  the  obvious  possession  of  fius  and  scales. 
All  these  marks  of  distinction  in  the  Levitical 
law  are  wisely  and  even  necessarily  made  on 
the  basis  of  popular  observation  and  belief,  not 
on  that  of  anatomical  exactness.  Otherwise  the 
people  would  have  been  continually  liable  to 
error.  Scientifically,  the  camel  would  be  said 
to  divide  the  hoof,  and  the  hare  does  not  chew 
the  cud.  But  laws  for  popular  use  must  neces- 
sarily employ  terms  as  they  are  popularly  un- 
derstood. These  matters  are  often  referred  to 
as  scientific  errors ;  whereas  they  were  simply 
descriptions,  necessarily  popular,  for  the  under- 
standing and  enforcement  of  the  law. 

Defilement  by  contact  comes  forward  very 
prominently  in  this  chapter,  as  it  is  also  fre- 
quently mentioned  elsewhere.  It  is  not  strange 
that  in  a  law  whose  educational  purpose  is 
everywhere  so  plain,  this  most  effective  symbol- 
ism should  hold  a  place,  and  the  contaminating 
effect  of  converse  with  evil  be  thus  impressed 
upon  this  people  in  their  spiritual  infancy.  It 
thus  has  its  part  with  all  other  precepts  of  cere- 
monial cleanness  in  working  out  the  great  spi- 
ritual purposes  of  the  law.  But  beyond  this, 
there  is  here  involved  the  great  truth,  but  im- 
perfectly revealed  under  the  old  dispensation, 
that  the  body,  as  well  as  the  soul,  has  its  part 
in  the  relations  between  God  arid  man.  Tho 
body,  as  well  as  the  soul,  was  a  sufferer  by  the 
primeval  sentence  upon  sin,  and  the  body,  as 
well  as  the  soul,  has  part  in  the  redemption  of 
Christ,  and  awaits  the  resurrection  of  the  just. 
The  ascetic  notions  of  the  niedireval  ages  re- 
garded the  body  as  evil  in  a  sense  entirely 
incompatible  with  the  representations  of  Scrip- 
ture. For  not  merely  is  the  body  the  handmaid 
of  the  soul,  and  the  necessary  instrument  of  tho 
soul's  action,  but  the  service  of  the  body  as  well 
as  the  soul  is  recognized  in  the  New  Testament 
(e.  g.,  Rom.  xii.  1)  as  a  Christian  duty.  On  its 
negative  side,  at  least,  this  truth  was  taught 
under  the  old  dispensation  by  the  many  laws  of 
bodily  purity,  the  series  of  which  begins  in  this 
chapter.  The  laws  of  impurity  from  physical 
contact  stand  as  an  appendix  to  the  laws  of  food 
and  as  an  introduction  to  the  other  laws  of 
purity,  and  form  the  connecting  link  between 
them. 


LEVITICUS. 


FIRST   SECTION. 

Laws  of  Clean  and  Unclean  Food. 

"The  Cleanness  of  the  Sacrifice — or  the  Contrast  of  the  Clean  and  Unclean  Animals" — Lange. 

Chap.  XI.  1-47. 
1,  2     And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  and  to  Aaron,  saying  unto  them,  Speak  unto 
the  children  of  Israel,  saying,  These  are  the  beasts  [animals1]  "which  ye  shall  eat 

3  among  all  the  beasts  that  are  on  the  earth.     Whatsoever  parteth  the  hoof,  and  is 
cloven  footed  [and  completely  separates  the  hoof2],  and  cheweth  the  cud,  among 

4  the  beasts,  that  shall  ye  eat.     Nevertheless  these  shall  ye  not  eat  of  them  that 
chew  the  cud,  or  of  them  that  divide  the  hoof:  as  the  camel,  because  he  cheweth 

5  the  cud,  but  divideth  not  the  hoof;  he  is  unclean  unto  you.     And  the  coney,3  be- 
cause he  cheweth  the  cud,  but  divideth  not  the  hoof;  he  is  unclean  unto   you. 

6  Aud  the  hare,  because  he  cheweth  the  cud,  but  divideth  not  the  hoof;  he  is  unclean 

7  unto  you.     And  the  swine,  though  he  divide  the  hoof,  and  be  cloven  footed  [and 
completely  separates  the  hoof4],  yet  he  cheweth  not  the  cud ;  he  is  unclean  to  you. 

8  Of  their  flesh  shall  ye  not  eat,  and  their  carcase  shall  ye  not  touch ;  they  are  un- 
clean to  you. 

9  BThese  shall  ye  eat  of  all  that  are  in  the  waters :  whatsoever  hath  fins  and  scales 

10  in  the  waters,  in  the  seas,  and  in  the  rivers,  them  shall  ye  eat.  And  all  that  have 
not  fins  and  scales  in  the  seas,  and  in  the  rivers,  of  all  that  move  in  the  waters, 
and  of  any  living  thing  which  is  in  the  waters,  they  shall  be  an  abomination  unto 

11  you:  they  shall  be  even  an  abomination  unto  you;  ye  shall  not  eat  of  their  flesh, 

12  but  ye  shall  have  their  carcases  in  abomination.  6Whatsoever  hath  no  fins  nor 
scales  in  the  waters,  that  shall  be  an  abomination  unto  you. 

13  And  these  are  they  which  ye  shall  have  in  abomination  among  the  fowls;  they 
shall  not  be  eaten,  they  are  an  abomination:  the  eagle,7  and  the  ossifrage,8  and  the 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  2.  rmn  is  a  different  ■word  from  nOHS  in  the  followiDg  clause,  and  the  difference  should  be  recognized  in 

t t  ■• : 

the  translation,  as  it  is  in  the  Semitic  versions.  The  former  is  the  more  general  term,  the  latter  (comp.  Gen.  i.  24)  refers  to 
the  quadrupeds  included  in  this  section  (vera.  1-S)  iu  contradistinction  from  birds  ami  reptiles. 

2  Ver.  3.   PD"^D    pDIJ    PVDt&'l-     The  idea  is  that  of  not  merely  partially  (like  the  camel),  but  completely  dividing 
the  hoof.    The  Sam.,  LXX.,  Syr.  and  nine  MSS.  make  this  still  more  indefinite  by  inserting  ^pi\y=two  before  the  last 

word. 

3  Ver.  5.   |2tyrb    The  animal  is  indicated  hero  as  one  that  chews  the  cud  (or  appears  to  do  so),  in  Vs.  civ.  IS;  Prov. 

I  T  T    — 

xxx.  26,  as  living  in  the  rocks,  and  in  the  latter  as  being  very  weak.  It  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  the  parallel  place.  Bent, 
xiv.  7.  Here  the  LXX.  renders  it  fiaowovs,  Aq.  Aayiuos;  in  Dent.  xiv.  7,  the  LXX.  has  ^oipoypv\Xto<;^briitty  orrotiaZ, 
■which  is  adopted  by  the  Vulg.  in  both  places.  The  Sam.  translates  it  Yabry  the  Hyrax  Syriacus,  which  is  said  to  be  st  11 
called  tsofwn  in  Southern  Arahia.     Furstbays:  "The  Targ.  points  to  the  same  animal   when   it  translates  NTltt,  NODD. 

t: -        t  :  - 
NT3l0  (leaper)  since  the  Voir  goes  by  leaps."    The  Duke  of  Argyle  (Reign  of  Law,  p.  264)  speaks  of  a  specimen  of  it  iu  the 

Zoological  Gardens,  and  states  that  in  the  structure  of  the  teeth  and  the  foot  it  is  assimilated  to  the  rhinoceros.  Cuvier 
Classed  it  with  the  pachyderms.  The  Rabbins  understood  it  to  be  a  rabbit,  and  were  followed  by  Luther  and  the  A.  V.  in 
the  old  word  Coney.  Bocbart  (Hieroz.  Lib.  III.,  c.  33 >  understands  it  of  the  Jerboa  or  bear-mouse,  and  so  Geseniua,  Geddes 
and  others.  Although  the  word  in  the  A.  V.  is  certainly  wrong,  yet  as  it  is  obsolete,  it  seems  unnecessary  to  make  a  change 
which  could  only  he  either  to  the  Heb.  word,  or  to  the  scientific  name. 

*  Ver.  7.  The  construction  is  the  Bame  as  in  ver.  3.    See  note  2. 

6  Ver.  9.  The  Sam  ,  one  MS.,  the  LXX.  and  Syr.  prefix  the  conjunction  ). 

•  Ver.  12.  The  same,  with  fourteen  MSS.,  here  prefix  the  conjunction. 

7  Ver.  13.  1£?J  is  uuiformly  translated  eagle  in  the  A.  V.,  dero?  in  the  LXX.,  aud  aquila  in  the  Vulg.    Kalisch  says 

this  "  is  beyond  a  doubt."  The  same  meaning  is  given  by  Fiirst  and  Gesenins,  although  both  would  include  also  the  sense 
of  vulture.     Clark's  proposed  emendation,  the  great  mlture,  seems  therefore  unnecessary. 

8  Ver.  13.  D*^2  JTJTV-     Both,  by  preponderance  of  authority,  species  of  eagles,  and  the  former  sufficiently  welt 

T  :  t 
described  l-y  omfrage  ;  the  latter  Bpeciea  is  not  certainly  identified,  the  word  occurring  only  here  and  in  tho  parallel,  Dent, 
xiv.  12.    The  LXX.  renders  aAiai€T09=8ett  eagle.    Fiirst  prefers  Valeria,  the  black  eagle.    Kalisch  prefers  the  sense  vulture. 
Gesen.  (Thceaur.;,  black  eagle. 


CHAP.  XI.  1-47.  89 


14,  15  ospray,8  and  the  vulture,9  and  the  kite10  after  his  kind;  "every  raven  after  his 

16  kind;  and  the  owl  [ostrich12],  and  the  night  hawk  [owl13],  and  the  cuckow  [gull1*], 

17  and  the  hawk  after  his  kind,  and  the  little  owl,15  and  the  cormorant,  and  the  great 
18,  19  owl,16  and  the  swan,17  and  the  pelican,  and  the  gier  eagle  [vulture18],  and  the 

stork,19  the"0  heron21  after  her  kind,  and  the  lapwing  [hoopoe1'2],  and  the  bat. 

20  All11  fowls  that  creep  [all  winged  creeping  things23],  going  upon  all  four,  shall  he 

21  an  abomination  unto  you.     Yet  these  may  ye  eat  of  every  flying  creeping  thing 
that  goeth  upon  all  four,  which  have24  legs  above  their  feet,  to  leap  withal15  upon 

22  the  earth  ;  even  these  of  them  ye  may  eat;  the  locust  after  his  kind,  and  the  bald 
locust26  after  his  kind,  and  the  beetle26  after  his  kind,  and  the  grasshopper  after  his 

23  kind.     But  all  other  flying  creeping  things,  which  have  four  feet,  shall  be  an  abo- 

9  Ver.  14.   nXI,  a  word,  d*.  \4y.    In  the  parallel  passage,  Dent.  xiv.  13,  it  is  HSO-    Its  etymology  indicates  a  rave- 

T  T  T  T 

nous  bird  of  swift  flight.  LXX.  yv\p=v»Uurct  Vulg.  mHvus=kite.  Bochart  considers  it  a  species  of  hawk  or  falcon.  So 
Kalisch.    In  Deut.  xiv.  13  there  is  mentioned  also  iT*L  making  twenty-one  varieties  of  birds;  but  that  word  in  Deut.  is 

T  ' 

omitted  by  the  Sam.  and  fonr  MSS. 

10  Ver.  14.   7VN  is  only  to  be  identified  by  the  fact  that  it  here  stands  for  the  name  of  a  class — after  his  kind,  and  that 

T  - 

in  Job  xxriii.  7  it  is  spoken  of  for  its  great  keenness  of  sight.  The  LXX  renders  here  kite,  in  Deut,  and  Job  vulture.  Clark 
makes  it  milrui  regalia. 

11  Ver.  15  and  ver.  20.    The  8am.,  many  MSS.  and  versions  prefix  the  conjunction. 

12  Ver.  16.   n^i**'"'   AS-    LXX.  arpovdos.    The  word  is  uniformly  rendered  owl  in  the  text  of  the  A.  V. ;  but   in  the 

marg.  of  Job  xxx.  29;  Isa,  xiii.  21;  xxxiv.  13;  xliii.  20,it  is  rendered  ostrich  in  accordance  with  the  Targ.,  LXX.,  Vulg. 

1 .,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  the  true  sense.    The  fem.  stands  for  the 
Rosen.:  "  Vox,  j"Y3,  apposita  est  ex  more  quodam  Orientuliuiu,  qui  nomina pater  ^  mater, filius,  jilia,  animation!  qnorundam 

nominihns  prrcfiirere  solent  sine  respectu  aetata  ot  sexna.'1    Bochart,  however,  thinks  it  means  distinctively  the  female. 

13  Ver.  lti.   DOnn  (.from  DOn»  to  do  violence),  interpreted  by  Bocbar;,  and  others  on  bis   authority,   of  the   male 

t  :  -  -  t 

ostrich;  but  this  is  now  generally  rejected.    The  Targ.  Onk.  has  XVV,  and   Targ.  Jems.  {<J1*SL3n=s«'a"o?o.     Others 

t    •  t    ■    :  - 

(Knobel  i  consider  it  the  cuckoo ;  but  the  rendering  of  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.,  oicl,  is  now  adopted  more  generally  thanai 

h  Ver.  10.  ^inty  occurs  only  here  and  in  Deut.  xiv.  10.     Knobel  understands  it  of  a  speciet,  of  hawk  trained  in  i 

for  bunting  gazelles,  etc. ;  but  most  other  interpreters  understand  it  of  a  sea  bird,  whether  the  stormy  petrel  (Bochart)  or 
more  generally  the  sea  gull  alter  the  Vulg.  mid  LXX.  Kdpos. 

15  Ver.  17.  D13-  There  seems  no  sufficient  reason  to  question  the  accuracy  of  the  A.  V.,  which  is  substantially  that 
of  the  ancient  versions.  Tristram  identifies  it  with  the  Athene  meridionals  common  in  Syria.  Bochart,  however,  would 
render  Pelican,  and  Rigffs  Aight-hawk. 

1G  Ver.  17.  The  A,  V.  is  probably  right.  The  I.W.,  Vulg.  and  Targ.  Onk.  have  Ibis,  which  seems  to  have  arisen  from 
a  misplacement  of  the  words  of  the  text,  rather  than  from  a  different  translation  of  cHty'j\    They  aro  followed  bj    B 

and  others. 

17  Ver.  IS.   n!3tyjj"V    The  same  word  i    ua  d,  rer,  30,  for  mole  (probably  chameleon):  here  it  refers  to  a  bird,  and  it  is 

likely  that  this  is  the  won]  for  which  This  stands  in  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.    But  it  is  not  probable  thnt  the  Israelites  would 
liiivc  iMini' min'ii  in  conn  r_-t  with  the  n  'is.    The  preponderance  of  authority  feee  Fiirst)  is  for  si  me  varii  ty  of  owl,  aci  ord- 
ing  to  the  <  lhald.,  Syr.  and  Sum. ;  but  there  dues  not  appear  to  be  sufficient  certainty  to  warrant  a  change  in  the  I 
the  A.  V, 

W   Ver.  IS.    On*V     LXX.  rendering  doubtful.     The  best  authorities  agree  that  some  species  of  vulture  is   meant 

T     T 

senilis  (thesaur.)  would  make  it  a  very  small  species,  of  the  size  of  a  crow.    Others  consider  it  most  probably  the 
Egyptian  vulture,  Ne/q  pterus.     Perhaps  something  of  this  kind  was  meant  by  gier  eagle,    Kul.  ■  I 

only  by  the  ordi  r  of  the  birds,  would  translate  pelican. 

m  Ver.  19.  ni'On,  LXX.,  Aq.,  Symm.,  TneoiL,  heron,  but  LXX.  in  Job  xxxix.  13  dork.    Either  bird  answers  well 

T    *  ~: 

1  enough  to  the  etymology  and  to  the  passages  when  it  occurs,  and  stnrk  is  as  likely  to  be  right  as  heron. 

-■'  \  i  (9.  ii  Sam.  and  sixteen  DISS,  prefix  the  conjunction  which  is  found  in  the  parallel  place  in  Pent.  For  tho 
wanl  ol  ii  Knobel  would  connect  the  word  with  the  preceding  as  an  adjective ;  but  it  seems  better  to  consider  it  as  au  acci- 
d  otal  omission. 

-1   \  er.  19.    ("13jX.     The  meaning  of  the  rendering  in  Targ.  Onk.  is  unknown,  Syr.  retains  the  Heb.  word,  LXX.  \apa- 
t  t— : 
Bptos,  a  bird  chiefly  remarkable  for  its  greediness.     The  Heb.  etymology  is  uncertain.     Clark  identifies  it  with  tho 

licnemus).    Fiirst  defines  it  r  i  Gesen,     Bochart,  following  the  etymology  of  the  B 

<■  if  the  angry  bird,  and  considers  it  some  species  of  eagle.     It  Beems  probable  that  the  A.  V.  is  wrong,  but  difficult  to 

-ritute. 
—  Ver.  19.   r\£T^~b     The  bird  intended  has  not  been  certainly  identified;  but  the  authority  of  the  LXX.,  eiroiroj  and 

Vulg.,  npupa,  is  here  followed.  The  Arab,  adopts  it,  and  it  is  followed  by  Riggs.  Bochart  would  render  mountain  cock 
after  the  Cliold. 

23  Ver.  20.  niJ'H  V*^U*  /i).  The  idea  of  fowls  that  creep  is  not  less  strange  and  grotesque  in  Heb.  than  in  English. 
The  word  V^E?  by  its  etymology  means  those  creatures  that  multiply  abundantly,  swarm,  whence  it  came  to  bo  applied 

to  very  much  the  same  creatures  as  wo  mean  by  vermin.  It  can  hardly  be  better  exprepsed  than  by  creeping  things. 
(■oilier,  upon  all  four  does  not  nece&sarilj  mean  having  just  lour  feet,  but  going  with  the  body  in  a  horizon! 

tion.  j 

-*  Ver.  21.  For  the  X"?  of  the  text  the  I.'n  has  1  7,  and  so  the  8am.  and  many  MSS.  So  it  must  necessarily  be  under- 
stood, as  ii  [s  in  the  versions. 

»  Ver.  21.  For  ?H3  the  Sam.  and  thirty-seven  MSS.  have  DH3. 

I    ••  T  "T 

*   Ver.  22.  Beetle  is  certainly  wrong;  for  this,  like  the  rest,  must  have  been  one  of  the  leaping  in-  iro  no 

means  of  identifying  these  four  varieties.     Each  of  them  stands  for  a  class  "after  his  kind."    Two  of  them,  the"  D1T7D  ;i,1,i 

the    /J^n,  do  not  occur  elsewhere.    The  others  ore  of  frequent  occurrence,  and  are  uniformly  translated  in  the  A.  V.  tho 

first  locust,  the  la=t  grasshopper.  It  would  pr  bably  be  better  in  the  other  cases  to  follow  the  example  of  the  older  English 
and  most  modern  versions  in  givi-ig  simply  the  Hebrew  names  without  attempting  transla.iou. 

21 


90  LEVITICUS. 


24  ruination  unto  you.     And  for  these  ye  shall  be  unclean :  "whosoever  toucheth  the 

25  carcase  of  them  shall  be  unclean  until  the  even.  And  whosoever  beareth  ought  of 
the  carcase  of  them  shall  wash  his  clothes,  aud  be  uucleau  until  the  even. 

26  TJie  carcases  of  every  beast  which  divideth  the  hoof,  and  is  not  cloven  footed, 
nor  cheweth  the  cud,  are  unclean  unto  you  :  every  one  that  toucheth  them27  shall  be 

27  unclean.  And  whatsoever  goeth  upon  his  paws,  among  all  manner  of  beastV7a  that 
go  on  all  four,  those  are  unclean  unto  you :  whoso  toucheth  their  carcase  shall  be 

28  unclean  until  the  even.  And  he  that  beareth  the  carcase  of  them  shall  wash  his 
clothes,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even :  they  are  unclean  unto  you. 

29  These  also  shall  be  unclean  unto  you  among  the  creeping  things  that  creep  upon 
the  earth ;  the  weasel,28  and  the  mouse,  and  the  tortoise  [the  great  lizard29]   after 

30  his  kind,  and  the  ferret  [gecko30],  and  the  chameleon  [strong  lizard31],  and  the 
lizard  [climbing  lizard32],  and  the  snail   [lizard33],  and  the  mole   [chameleon34]. 

31  These  are  unclean  to  you  among  all  that  creep:  whosoever  doth  touch  them,  when 

32  they  be  dead,  shall  be  unclean  until  the  even.  And  upon  whatsoever  any  of  them, 
when  they  are  dead,  doth  fall,  it  shall  be  unclean;  whether  it  be  any  vessel  [thing35] 
of  wood,  or  raiment,  or  skin,  or  sack,  whatsoever  vessel  [thing35]  it  be,  wherein 
[wherewith35]  any  work  is  done,  it  must  be  put  into  water,  and  it  shall  be  unclean 

33  until  the  even ;  so  it  shall  be  cleansed.     And  every  earthen  vessel,  whereinto  any 

34  of  them  falleth,  whatsoever  is  in  it  shall  be  unclean;  aud  ye  shall  break  it.  Of 
all  meat  [food"6]  which  may  be  eaten,  that  on  which  such  [am.  such3'1]  water  cometh 
shall  be  unclean:  and  all  drink  that  may  be  drunk  in  every  such  vessel  shall  be 

Co  unclean.  And  every  thing  whereupon  any  part  of  their  carcase  falleth  shall  be 
unclean ;  ivhether  it  be  oven,  or  ranges38  for  pots,  they  shall  be  broken  down :  for 

36  they  are  unclean,  and  shall  be  unclean  unto  you.  Nevertheless  a  fountain39  or  pit, 
wherein  there  is  plenty  of  water,  shall  be  clean:  but  that  which40  toucheth  their 

27  Ver.  2G.  Six  MSS.  and  the  LXX.  specify,  what  is  sufficiently  plain,  their  carcases.  **  Ver.  27.  See  note1  on  ver.  2. 

28  Ver.  29.    "ntl  occurs  nowhere  else.     The  A.  V.  seems  justified  in  following  the  LXX.  and  Targ.,  although  Bochart 

would  render  mole*  which  is  still  called  Chuld  bv  the  Araba. 

29  Ver.  29.   2¥,  a  word  iu  this  sense,  air.  Aty.     There  seems  no  doubt  that  this  and  all  the  names  following  in  ver.  30 

T 

indicate  various  species  of  lizard.  So  Rigg*.  This  particular  one  is  called  by  the  LXX.  6  icpoKo'SuAos  6  ^epo-aio9='anrf 
Crocodile,  and  so  St.  Jerome.  Bochart  considers  it  a  kind  of  large  lizard  abounding  iu  J^yria,  often  two  feet  long.  Tiistain 
identifies  it  with  the  ttromasttj:  tyii.ijjes.     The  translation  proposed  by  Clark,  the  great  lizard,   is  probably  as  good  as  can 

be  had.  . 

30  Ver.  30.   HpJS*  in  this  sense  only  here.     LXX.  u.vydAr)=$hrcw  mouse ;  Onk.  *j*=hedr/e  hog;  the  other  oriental  ver- 

Itt— :         _  -T 

sions  by  vaMous  names  of  lizard.  Almost  all  the  authorities  concur  in  making  it  some  variety  of  lizard.  Knobel  is  cer- 
tainly wrong  in  ideniif-  ing  it  with  the  Lacerta  NUotica,  an  animal  lour  feet  long.  Fiirst  only  so  far  defines  it  as  "a  reptile 
with  a  long  narrow  neck."     The  translation  of  Itosentuuller,  lacerta  gecko,  Beenis  as  probable  as  any. 

81  Ver.  30.   fl3,  a  word  of  frequent  occurrence  for  strength,  power,  but  as  a  name  of  an   animal   occurring  only  here. 

The  etvmology  seems  to  indicate  a  characteristic  of  strength  (although  Furst  makes  it  the  sh'my),  and  the  connection, 
Borne  variety  of  lizard.  The  translation  chameleon  is  derived  from  the  LXX.,  and  is  probably  wrong.  Keil  6hows  that  Kuo- 
LM  (followed  by  Clark)  is  in  error  in  translating  by  frog.  The  uncertainly  is  !■•  •  ;_reat  to  substitute  another  word  lor  that 
of  the  A.  V.,  which  yet  must  be  changed,  because  the  last  name  belongs  to  the  chameleon.  The  etymology  simply  is  there- 
fore indicated,  , 

W  Ver.  30.   HNDa  another  word,  an.  Aty.     LXX.  KaAap^TT]?,  Vulg.  stellio.     Knobel  makes  it  a  crawliug,  and  Fuerst  a 
t  t  : 
climbing  lizard.     The  latter  is  adopted  as  a  probable  sense  in  order  to  avoid  confusion  in  the  test. 

33  Ver.  30.    Dorii  a^o  a7r-  ^y.     LXX.  o~avpa,  Vulg.  lacerta,  and  so  also  the  Syr.    The  A.  V.  comes  from  the  Targ. 

Jens,  and  Rabbinical  authorities.  Otherwise  there  is  a  general  agreement  with  Borhart  that  it  should  be  rendered 
lizard 

34  Ver.  30.   n*0UO.n  has  already  occurred,  ver.  18,  as  the  name  of  a  bird.     Here  it  is  some  variety  of  lizard,  und  from 

v  t  :  • 
its  etymology — Q£J 'J,  to  breathe,  to  draw  in  air — there  is  a  good  degree  of  unanimity  in  understanding  it  of  the  chameleon, 

-    T 

either  as  inflating  itself,  or  as  popularly  supposed  to  livo  on  air. 

35  Ver.  32.   ,l73  is  evidently  here  used,  as  in  Ex.  xxii.  6  (7),  in  its  most  comprehensive  Beuse.     It   is  only  limited  by 
the  clause  wherewith  any  work  is  done.    This  change  of  course  makes  it  necessary  to  translate  DH3,  where- 

V  T 

vith.  instead  of  wlierein. 

38  Ver.  34.    73X  means  any  kind  of  food,  especially  cereal.    The  English  meal  is  now  so  altered  in  sense  that  it  is  bet- 

fcer  t"  change  it. 

37  Ver.  31.  The  word  such  is  unfortunately  inserted  in  the  A.  V.     The  idea  is  (comp.  ver.  3$)   that  all  meat  prepare  1 
With  water  Bbonid  be  rendered  unclean  by  the  falling  of  any  of  these  animals  upon  it. 

33  Ver.  85.   □'1*3  occura  ouly  here,  aud  there  is  much  question  as  to  its  meaning.    According  to  Keil  it  "can  only 

s'gnify,  wh"n  uspd  in  the  dual,  a  vessel  consisting  of  two  parts!,  i".  e.  a  pan  or  pot  with  a  lid.''  So  Knobel  and  the  T.irgutns  ; 
othi  re  a  support  for  the  pot  like  a  pair  of  bricks,  LXX.  \upt6ttous;  others,  as  Ftirttt,  "a  cooking  furnace^  probably  consisting 
el  two  ranges  of  atones  which  met  together  in  a  .sharp  angle." 

39  Ver.  30.  The  Sim.  and  LXX.  add  of  waters. 

■»"  V.  •     ;r    |;   ..  uraflller,  Ke  I,  an. I  others  understand  this  in  the  muscutino,  /**•  who,  viz.  in  removing  the  carcase,    Tim 
meaning,  bowerar,  a  cms  to  bu  more  geueial ;  the  ^er^un  or  the  thing  touching  lb-  carcase,  in  removing  it  oi  otherwise. 


CnAP.  XI.  1-47. 


91 


37 
38 

39 


41 
42 


carcase  shall  be  unclean.  And  if  any  part  of  their  carcase  fall  upon  any41  sowing 
seed  which  is  to  be  sown,  it  shall  be  clean.  But  if  any  water  be  put  upon  the  seed, 
and  any  part  of  their  carcase  fall  thereon,  it  sfiall  be  unclean  unto  you. 

And  if  any  beast,  of  which  ye  may  eat,  die ;  he  that  toucheth  the  carcase  there- 
40  of"  shall  be  unclean  until  the  even.  And  he  that  eateth  of  the  carcase  of  it42  shall 
wash  his  clothes,  aud  be  unclean  until  the  even :  he  also  that  beareth  the  carcase 
of  it42  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even. 

And  every  creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth  shall  be  an  abomination ; 
it  shall  not  be  eaten.  Whatsoever  goeth  upon  the  belly,43  and  whatsoever  goeth 
upon  all  four,  or  whatsoever  hath  more  feet  among  all  creeping  things  that  creep 

43  upon  the  earth,  them  ye  shall  not  eat ;  for  they  are  an  abomination.  Ye  shall  not 
make  yourselves  abominable  with  any  creeping  thing  that  creepeth,  neither  shall 

44  ye  make  yourselves  unclean  with  them,  that  ye  should  be  defiled  thereby.  For  I 
am  the  Lord  your  God :  ye  shall  therefore  sanctify  yourselves,  and  ye  shall  be 
holy ;  for  I  am  holy :  neither  shall  ye  defile  yourselves  with  any  manner  of  creep- 

45  ing  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth.  For  I  am  the  Lord"  that  bringeth  you 
up  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  to  be  your  God ;  ye  shall  therefore  be  holy,  for  I  am 
holy. 

46  This  is  the  law  of  the  beasts,  and  of  the  fowl,  and  of  every  living  creature 
that  moveth  in  the  waters,  and  of  every  creature  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth : 

47  to  make  a  difference  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean,  and  between  the  beast45 
that  may  be  eaten  and  the  beast45  that  may  not  be  eaten. 


«  Ver.  37.  The  Sam.,  two  MSS.,  and  Yulg.  omit  any;  but  two  MSS.  and  the  LXX.  insert  it  before  seed  in  the  follow- 
ing ViT-e. 

<-  Vers.  39  and  40.  Several  MSS.  and  the  LXX.  have  the  plural  In  these  places. 

*3  Ver.  4-2.  The  letter  1  in  prU=°etfy  is  printed  in  larger  type  in  the  Ueb.  Bibles  to  indicate  that  it  is  the  middle  let- 
ter of  the  Pentateuch. 

«  Ver.  45.  The  Sam.,  two  M^S.  and  the  Syr.  add,  as  in  ver.  44,  your  God. 

c  Ver.  47.  See  note  on  ver.  2. 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

The  whole  of  Lange's  "Exegetieal"  is  here 
given  in  full,  the  remarks  of  the  translator  being 
added  in  square  brackets. 

"Cleanness  as  a  condition  of  the  sacrifices — 
(he  cleanness  of  the  sacrificial  animals,  and  the 
cleanness  to  be  regained  through  the  purification 
of  men  and  of  human  conditions.  Chap,  xi.-xv. 
'These  are  regarded  in  the  law  as  defiling:  the 
use  of  certain  animals,  and  the  touching  a  car- 
case (chap,  si.);  the  confinement  of  a  woman 
(chap,  xii.);  the  leprosy  (chap,  xiii.,  xiv.):  the 
issue  of  seed  of  a  man  (eh.  xv.  1—15) ;  the  invo- 
luntary emission  of  semen  (ib.  15,  lb) ;  the  car- 
nal conjunction  of  the  sexes  [ib.  18) ;  the  menses 
of  a  woman  (ib.  19-24) ;  and  the  lasting  issue 
of  blood  of  the  same  (ib.  25-30);  to  which  Num. 
xix.  11-22  adds  the  touching  the  dead;  but  the 
things  meutioned  do  not  all  give  the  same  un- 
cleanness,'  etc.  Knobel,  p.  432.  The  priests 
were  to  administer  the  laws  of  cleanness  and  of 
purification,  so  to  speak,  as  the  religious  district 
physicians  of  the  theocracy.  On  the  laws  of  the 
Gentiles  about  cleanness,  see  Knobel,  pp.  43G- 
40;  on  the  animals,  pp.  443  ss.  (the  detailed  pre- 
sentation)." 

"Chap.  xi.  The  cleanness  of  the  sacrifice,  or 
the  contrast  of  the  clean  and  unclean  animals. 
The  clean  sacrificial  animal  is  marked  out  from 
the  four-footed  beasts  by  two  characteristics: 
cleaving  the  hoof  and  chewing  the  cud.  The 
cloven  hoof  distinguishes  the  slow-moving,  tame 
animal,  naturally  adapted  to  domestication,  from 


the  single-hoofed  animal,  naturally  wild,  although 
sometimes  capable  of  being  tamed.  The  rumi- 
nation characterizes  quiet,  dispassionate,  grami- 
nivorous animals,  as  opposed  to  the  carnivorous 
beasts  of  prey,  and  the  unclean  omnivorous 
beasts." 

"  Thu9  especially  are  the  one-hoofed  excluded, 
although  they  chew  the  cud  ;  the  camel,  and  (as 
stated)  the  rock  badger,  the  hare.  And  so  with 
those  that  cleave  the  hoof  and  do  not  chew  the 
cud — the  swine.  And,  of  course,  the  four-footed 
creatures  which  lack  both  characteristics." 

"  In  regard  to  all  unclean  animals,  the  use  of 
their  meat  and  the  touching  of  their  carcase  is 
forbidden.  That  they  certainly  might  not 
be  offered  in  sacrifice  is  therewith  presupposed. 
Vers.  1-8." 

[From  this  general  view  of  the  chapter,  and 
from  several  of. the  particulars,  a  dissent  must  be 
expressed.  Although,  as  has  been  shown  in  the 
preliminary  note,  the  original  distinction  between 
clean  and  unclean  animals  was  in  regard  to  their 
fitness  or  unfitness  for  sacrifice;  yet  here  there 
is  no  immediate  reference  to  sacrifice  at  all,  and 
the  animals  are  classified  solely  in  relation  to 
their  being  allowed  or  forbidden  for  food.  Again, 
in  the  detail,  while  among  the  animals  reared  by 
man  it  may  be  true  that  "the  cloven  hoof  dis- 
tinguishes the  slow-moving  tame  animal;"  yet 
this  certainly  could  not  apply  to  the  gazelle  and 
other  kinds  of  deer,  which  are  equally  included 
among  the  clean  animals.  Probably  Lange's  re- 
mark was  made  because  his  mind  was  already 
fixed  upon  the  classification  of  animals  for  sacri- 
fice, although  even  then  it  would  but  imperfectly 


92 


LEVITICUS. 


apply  to  the  goat.  Also,  on  the  other  side,  "the 
single-hoofed  animal,  naturally  wild,  but  some- 
times capable  of  being  tamed,"  is  quite  insuffi- 
cient in  its  description,  for  the  single-hoofed 
horse  is  quite  as  much  a  domestic  animal  as  the 
bull  or  the  goat,  and  it  fails  altogether  to  include 
the  many-toed  domestic  cat  and  dog,  which  were 
eminently  unclean. 

[The  first  and  larger  half  of  this  book  is  con- 
cerned with  the  means  of  approach  to  God. 
First  of  all  came  the  laws  of  sacrifice,  chaps,  i. — 
vii.;  then  followed  the  consecration  of  the  priests 
by  whom  the  sacrifices  were  to  be  offered,  with 
an  account  of  their  entrance  upon  their  office, 
and  the  connected  events,  cbaps.  viii. — x.;  now 
follow  the  laws  of  purity,  chaps,  xi. — xv.,  and 
of  these  first,  the  laws  of  clean  and  unclean  food, 
contained  in  the  present  chapter.  In  this  con- 
nection also  the  uncleanness  produced  by  contact 
with  the  dead  bodies  of  animals  unclean  for  food 
is  emphatically  set  forth,  and  thus  this  chapter 
is  intimately  connected  with  the  laws  of  purifi- 
cation in  the  following  chapters.  "In  all  the 
nations  and  all  the  religions  of  antiquity  we  find 
the  contrast  between  clean  and  unclean,  which 
was  developed  in  a  dualistic  form,  it  is  true,  in 
many  of  the  religious  systems,  but  had  its  pri- 
mary root  in  the  corruption  that  had  entered  the 
world  through  sin.  This  contrast  was  limited  in 
the  Mosaic  law  to  the  animal  food  of  the  Israel- 
ites, to  contact  with  dead  animals  and  human 
corpses,  and  to  certain  bodily  conditions  and 
diseases  that  are  associated  with  decomposition." 
Keil. 

[Vers.  1-8  are  concerned  with  the  larger 
quadrupeds.  The  distinction  is  so  made  among 
these  that  the  Israelites  might  be  in  no  mistake 
about  them.  To  an  anatomist  it  might  have  been 
enough  to  say  either  parteth  the  hoof,  or 
cheweth  the  cud;  but  since  several  animals 
apparently  had  one  of  these  characteristics  with- 
out the  other,  or  were  popularly  supposed  to 
have  them,  for  the  sake  of  clearness  both  are 
given,  and  also  some  animals  are  excluded,  as 
the  camel,  which  apparently  lacked  one  of  them, 
although  anatomically  it  might  be  considered  as 
possessing  both. 

[Ver.  1.  Both  Moses,  as  the  lawgiver,  and 
Aaron,  as  the  now  fully  consecrated  high-priest, 
to  whom  would  especially  pertain  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  laws  of  purity,  are  now  addressed 
together. 

[Ver.  3.  No  enumeration  is  here  made  of  the 
animals  possessing  these  qualifications  ;  but  there 
is  such  an  enumeration  in  the  parallel  passage, 
Deut.  xiv.  4,  5. 

[Ver.  4.  The  camel  has  a  ball  behind  the  cleft 
of  the  foot  on  which  it  treads.  It  comes,  there- 
fore, under  the  class  of  those  with  hoofs  not 
completely  cloven.  So  also  the  swine  in  ver.  7 
is  spoken  of  as  dividing  the  hoof,  because  he 
does  so  in  all  common  acceptation,  and  is  so 
spoken  of  at  this  day,  although  anatomically  he 
has  four  toes.  Correspondingly  in  vers.  6,  6 
animals  are  spoken  of  which  appear  to  the  eye 
to  chew  the  cud,  although  they  do  not  really; 
because  otherwise  the  people,  guided  by  the  ap- 
pearance, would  be  led  into  transgression.  All 
these  animals,  it  is  needless  to  say,  were  eaten 


among  surrounding  people,  some  by  one  nation, 
some  by  another. — F.  G.] 

Vers.  9-12.  "The  clean  aquatic  animals  are 
distinguished  likewise  by  two  characteristics — 
they  must  have  fins  and  scales.  All  aquatic  ani- 
mals, on  the  other  hand,  which  have  not  these 
characteristics,  should  be  not  only  unclean  to 
them,  but  an  abomination.  The  fish  nature  must 
thus  appear  distinctly  marked.  Of  fitness  for 
sacrifice,  nevertheless,  nothing  is  said  here" 
[obviously  because  fish  were  not  included  among 
sacrificial  animals  at  all]  ;  "  as  food  for  fast  days, 
fish  could  not  possibly  have  been  used  by  the  Jeivs." 
[In  this,  as  in  the  preceding  law,  the  marks  of 
distinction  are  to  be  understood  of  obvious  ones: 
fins  and  scales  that  were  apparent  to  the  eye. 
As  the  law  covers  all  that  are  in  the  waters, 
the  Crustacea,  lobsters,  crabs,  etc.,  and  the  mol- 
lusks,  oysters,  etc.,  are  wholly  forbidden. — F.  G.] 

Vers.  13-19.  "With  reference  to  birds,  the 
unclean  varieties  are  named  at  length :  eagles, 
hawks,  fish-hawks,  vultures,  kites,  and  every 
thing  of  that  kind,  all  kinds  of  ravens,  the 
ostrich,  the  night-owl,  the  cuckoo,  the  kinds  of 
sparrow-hawk,  the  eared  owl,  the  swan,  the 
horned  owl,  the  bat,  the  bittern,  stork,  heron, 
jay,  hoopoe,  swallow.  The  clean  kinds  are  not 
named;  they  are  limited  to  a  few  examples. 
Pigeons  and  turtle-doves,  however,  were  more 
especially  made  use  of  for  sacrifice."  ["Pigeons 
and  turtle-doves"  were  the  only  birds  used  for 
sacrifice,  but  they  are  not  mentioned  here,  be- 
cause this  chapter  is  not  concerned  with  sacri- 
fice. For  the  birds  intended  by  this  list  of 
twenty  Hebrew  names,  see  the  Textual  notes. 
All  the  birds  mentioned,  so  far  as  they  can  bo 
identified,  feed  more  or  less  exclusively  upon 
animal  food ;  but  no  general  characteristic  is 
given.  The  list  is  probably  only  meant  to  in- 
clude those  prohibited  birds  with  which  the 
Israelites  were  likely  to  come  in  contact.  All 
not  included  in  it,  however,  would  have  been 
lawful  under  a  strict  construction  of  the  law. 
The  bat  is  included  in  the  prohibited  list  on  the 
general  principle  of  this  whole  nomenclature ;  it 
was  popularly  regarded  as  a  bird. — F.  G.] 

Vers.  20-25.  "A  remarkable  exception  is  made 
by  the  varieties  of  locusts  appended  to  the  birds 
(locusts,  crickets,  grasshoppers,  green  grasshop- 
pers). It  is  as  if  these  animals  were  to  be  an 
important  object  of  game  for  the  theocracy." 
[It  is  evident  that  they  did,  as  in  the  case  of  John 
the  Baptist,  become  an  important  item  of  food 
for  the  poorer  classes,  and  as  they  are  still  in  the 
desert  regions  adjoining  Palestine.  —  F.  G.] 
"But  besides  these,  all  winged  (four-footed)  in- 
sects are  described  as  things  to  be  avoided  (not 
abominable)."  [This  is  a  general  prohibition 
of  all  small  flying  creatures,  having  more  than 
two  feet.  Creeping  things  in  the  original 
means  also  "things  that  swarm  "  or  multiply  in 
great  numbers.  Going  upon  all  four  seems  in- 
tended, in  contrast  to  birds  which  have  only  two 
feet,  to  include  all  that  have  more  than  two  feet, 
and  consequently  creep  in  a  horizontal  position. 
It  is  so  understood  by  Jewish  writers.  From 
this  general  prohibition  the  saltaloria  are  ex- 
cepted, which  are  still,  as  they  have  always 
been,  used  as  an  article  of  food  by  the  poorer 
classes  in  the  East.     Tccse  have,  like  the  common 


CHAP.  XI.  1-47. 


93 


grasshopper,  very  long  hind  legs  for  leaping. 
With  this  exception,  this  whole  class  of  creatures 
is  described  in  vers.  23-25  as  abominable.  Yet 
the  living  animal  communicated  no  uncleanness 
by  contact — only  its  dead  body.  This  is  a  decla- 
ration immediately  afterwards  (vers.  27,  28)  ex- 
tended also  to  the  bodies  of  unclean  quadrupeds, 
and  also  (vers.  39,  40)  to  the  bodies  of  even  clean 
animals  that  have  died  of  themselves.  Washing 
of  the  clothes  (vers.  25,  28)  required  of  those 
who  bore  their  carcases  was  evidently  because 
contact  with  the  clothes  could  hardly  be  avoided 
in  doing  this. — F.  G.] 

Vers.  26-28.  "Once  more  the  characteristics 
are  enjoined — to  which,  however,  the  definition 
is  added  that  also  all  beasts  which  go  on  paws 
(the  stealthy-going  beasts  of  prey)  are  to  be  con- 
sidered unclean." 

Vers.  29-38.  "  Moreover  there  is  still  a  crowd 
of  little  animals  named  in  which  there  is  no  at- 
tempt at  a  natural  history  classification,  as  a  re- 
semblance has  already  appeared  in  tho  four- 
footed  flying  creatures.  Mammalia:  mole  and 
mouse;  amphibia:  the  lizard,  the  Egyptian  li- 
zard, the  frog,  the  tortoise,  the  snail,  the  chame- 
leon. This  division  of  various  animals  is  more 
especially  prominent  because  the  individuals  that 
compose  it  could  easily  make  clean  objects  un- 
clean. First,  the  dead  body  of  all  these  crea- 
tures is,  and  makes,  unclean ;  secondly,  the  wa- 
ter with  which  one  has  purified  either  himself  or 
any  object  from  them  ;  thirdly,  utensils,  meats 
and  drinks  which  these  creatures"  [i.  e.,  their 
dead  bodies]  "have  touched,  vers.  29-35.  On 
the  other  hand,  these  animals  cannot,  defile  the 
spring,  the  cistern,  or  the  seeds  intended  for 
sowing.  The  case  is  different  with  seed  intended 
for  food  when  wet  with  water,  vers.  36-38." 
[The  names  of  these  creatures  have  already  been 
treated  in  the  Textual  notes.  It  appears  that, 
except  the  first  mentioned  weasel  (or  mole)  and 
the  mouse,  they  are  all  of  the  lizard  family.  But 
in  vers.  32-38  the  uncleanness  produced  by  con- 
tact with  their  dead  bodies  is  carried  much  fur- 
ther than  in  regard  to  the  animals  previously 
named,  doubtless  for  the  reason  suggested  by 
Lange  that  there  was  more  likelihood  of  contact 
from  them.  Any  thing  of  which  use  was  made 
in  doing  work  (ver.  32)  must  be  soaked  in  water. 
Skin  included  in  the  list  refers  to  the  skins  used 
for  churning,  for  holding  wine  and  other  liquids, 
and  for  a  variety  of  purposes.  The  earthen  ves- 
sel (ver.  33)  into  which  any  of  their  bodies  fell 
must  be  broken  on  the  same  principle,  but  with 
an  opposite  application,  as  in  vi.  28.  The  ground 
in  both  cases  is  the  absorbent  character  of 
unglazed  earthenware;  there  it  must  be  broken 
lest  what  it  had  absorbed  of  the  "most  holy  offer- 
ing" should  be  defiled ;  here  lest  the  defilement 
it  had  itself  absorbed  should  be  communicated. 
In  vers.  34  and  38  it  is  provided  that  if  their 
carcase  fell  upon  any  food  or  seed  in  a  dry 
Btate.  it  should  not  communicate  defilement ;  but 
if  these  were  wet,  they  should  be  defiled.  The 
reason  of  the  distinction  is  evident — the  moisture 
would  act  as  a  conveyor  of  the  defilement.  In 
ver.  35  the  strong  contaminalion  of  these  dead 
bodies  is  still  further  expressed  ;  but  in  ver.  36 
an  exception  is  made  in  favor  of  any  large  col- 
lection of  water  in  fountains  or  cisterns,  on  the 


general  principle  that  God  "  will  have  mercy  ra- 
ther than  sacrifice." — F.  G.] 

Vers.  39,  40.  "  Finally  comes  into  considera- 
tion the  carcase  of  the  clean  animal  that  has  died 
a  natural  death.  This  also  makes  unclean  (a) 
by  contact,  (6)  by  unconscious  using  thereof,  (c) 
through  carrying  and  throwing  it  away.  The 
one  defiled  must  wash  his  clothes  and  hold  him- 
self unclean  until  evening."  [Vet  from  vii.  24  it 
is  evident  that  this  precept  applied  to  the  dead 
body  as  a  whole,  not  to  the  fat,  or  probably  to 
the  skin,  when  it  had  been  separated.  The  rea- 
son for  the  uncleanness  of  the  carcase  was  evi- 
dently that  its  blood  had  not  been  poured  out, 
but  was  still  in  the  veins  and  arteries,  and  spread 
about  in  the  flesh.  This  would  not  apply  to  the 
separate  fat,  nor  to  the  skin,  when  properly 
cleaned.  The  provision  for  purification  of  one 
who  had  eaten  of  the  flesh  may  apply  not  only  to 
unconscious  eating  (Lange),  but  also  to  eating  in 
cases  of  necessity.  It  did  not  constitute  a  Jtn, 
but  only  a  ceremonial  defilement,  for  which 
purification  was  provided. — F.  G.] 

Vers.  41,  42.  "At  last  the  true  vermin  are 
spoken  of.  Every  thing  that  crawls,  that  goes 
on  the  belly  (in  addition  to  the  division  already 
given),  four-footed  vermin,  and  those  having 
more  than  four  feet  (beetles)."  [It  was  a  curi- 
ous conceit,  adopted  from  Miinster  by  some  of 
the  older  writers,  that  flies  and  worms  living 
upon  fruit  and  vegetables  are  not  here  prohibited 
because  they  do  not  "creep  upon  the  earth." 
The  text  evidently  intends  to  forbid  all  creep- 
ing things,  and  is  especially  comprehensive  in 
ver.  43.  The  Talmudists  also  exclude  from  the 
operation  of  the  law  all  the  minute  creatures 
supposed  by  them  to  be  spontaneously  generated 
in  vegetables,  fruits,  cheese,  etc.,  ami  all  the  mi- 
nute parasitic  animals.  It  is  plain  enough,  how- 
ever, that  the  law,  making  its  distinctions  by  ob. 
vious  and  popularly  recognized  marks,  does  not 
enter  at  all  into  minutix  of  this  sort.] 

Vers.  43-45.  [Ye  shall  not  make  your- 
selves abominable. — Lit.]  "Ye  shall  not 
make  your  souls  an  abomination — a  strong  ex- 
pression, but  the  key  to  this  legislation.  From 
the  educational  standpoint  of  the  law  for  this 
morally  infant  people,  purification  must  be  made 
from  all  beastly  conditions  by  a  strong  exclusion 
of  all  the  lower  animal  forms,  and  the  people 
thus  be  elevated  to  a  consciousness  of  personal 
dignity.  Therefore  it  is  also  further  said  that 
this  is  in  conformity  with  the  character  of  Jeho- 
vah your  God.  Ye  shall  therefore  sanctify 
yourselves,  and  ye  shall  be  holy — i.  c,  be- 
come sanctified  personalities;  for  I  am  holy — 
i.e.,  the  absolute  sanctified  Personality.  They 
could  thus,  by  the  defilement  of  their  body,  de- 
file also  their  souls.  This  also  is  made  promi- 
nent: that  Jehovah  bringeth  you  up  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  the  country  defiled  by  ani- 
mal worship." 

Vers.  46,  47.  "This  is  the  law. — Although 
it  is  not  specifically  extended  over  the  whole  ani- 
mal kingdom,  it  is  still  a  general  regulating  prin- 
ciple according  to  which  the  distinctions  are  to  be 
made.  In  principle,  with  this,  the  distinction  is 
also  introduced  in  regard  to  the  vegetable  king- 
dom, the  contrast  of  edible  and  inedible  plants. 


94 


LEVITICUS. 


Yet  the  application  of  this  to  the  manner  of 
living,  to  the  usages,  is  left  untold." 

"In  regard  to  the  law  of  clean  animals,  we 
have  to  distinguish  different  classes :  the  speci- 
fically clean,  or  cleanest  animals,  are  those  used 
in  sacrifice — old  and  young  cattle,  sheep  and 
goats,  turtle-doves,  and  (young)  pigeons.  These 
animals  form  the  common  food  of  Jehovah  and 
His  people  ;  the  symbolical  food  of  Jehovah,  and 
the  actual  food  of  the  Israelites — a  mark  of  the 
divine  dignity  of  man,  and  of  his  designation  as 
the  image  of  God.  Of  the  vegetables  :  with  this 
animal  centre  correspond  the  cereals,  especially 
barley  and  wheat,  incense,  wine,  and  oil;  of  the 
mineral  kingdom,  salt.  The  second  class  is 
made  up  of  the  clean  animals  which  men  were 
allowed  to  eat,  but  which  were  not  fitted 
for  sacrifice.  The  third  class  is  made  up  of 
the  unclean  animals,  the  touch  of  which, — 
80  long  as  they  are  living, — does  not  make 
men  unclean,  but  of  which  they  are  not  al- 
lowed to  eat,  and  whose  carcase  defiles  them, 
(not  the  fat  of  the  slain  animals).  In  the  fourth 
class,  finally,  are  the  repulsive  animals,  which 
even  while  living  are  repulsive  at  least  to  men, 
the  creeping  and  crawling  animals.  That  this 
classificatiou  was  to  be  symbolic  of  spiritual 
conditions  is  shown  to  us  very  clearly  in  the  vi- 
sion of  Peter  in  Acts  x.  ;  but  that  the  ordinary 
symbolism  is  limited  by  extraordinary  symboli- 
cal requirements  is  shown  to  us  by  the  appear- 
ance of  the  eagle  in  the  forms  of  the  Cherubim. 
With  the  New  Testament  this  symbolism  gene- 
rally has  reached  its  end,  that  is,  face  to  face 
with  Christian  knowledge.  Cut  yet,  condition- 
ally, it  remains  in  the  New  Testament  era  pro- 
portionately through  the  Christian  national  cus- 
toms, as  this  can  be  deduced  from  the  prohibition 
of  the  eating  of  blood,  and  of  things  strangled 
(Acts  xv.).  The  condition  of  natural  abhor- 
rence towards  all  repulsive  objects  certainly  re- 
mains more  or  less  ineradicable,  although  even 
in  this  respect,  necessity  can  break  iron." 

"  We  should  distinguish  here  most  carefully 
between  the  theocratic  teleological  rules,  which 
have  a  divine  and  ideal  force,  and  their  exem- 
plification, which  belongs  to  the  Jewish  sensits 
communis,  and  its  product,  popular  usage  ;  as  is 
shown  here,  particularly  by  the  exampte  of  the 
unruminating  animals,  the  badger  and  hare 
(which  seemed  to  the  people  to  ruminate  to  some 
extent).  Obstinacy  in  valuing  the  literal  inspi- 
ration would  certainly  make  here  an  irrecon- 
cilable conflict  between  theology,  or  even  nomi- 
nal belief,  and  natural  science,  and  the  hare 
would  become  the  favorite  wild  game  of  negation 
as  Balaam's  ass  is  its  favorite  charger." 

"  In  regard  to  the  animals  mentioned  here,  we 
must  refer  to  the  detailed  treatmeut  of  Knobcl 
and  Keil,  the  quoted  literature  of  the  latter,  and 
the  natural  history  of  Calwer  and  others." 

[It  is  to  be  observed  that  there  is  no  defile- 
ment whatever  produced  by  the  contact  with  any 
living  animal.  The  distinction  between  animals 
which  are  attractive  and  those  which  are  repul- 
sive to  man  is  not  at  all  recognized  ;  nor  indeed, 
judging  from  the  habits  of  different  nations, 
would  it  be  easy  to  draw  any  line  of  distinction 
on  this  ground.     The  law  simply  prescribes  what 


animals  shall  be,  and  what  shall  not  be  used  for 
food —  between  the  beast  that  may  be 
eaten  and  the  beast  that  may  not  be  eaten, 

ver.  47.  The  distinction  is  nevertheless  symbo- 
lical, as  the  line  of  separation  is  plainly  so  taken 
as  to  exclude  from  the  list  of  the  clean  all  carni- 
vora,  except  in  the  case  of  fish  whose  habits  are 
to  a  great  extent  hidden  under  the  waves  from 
common  observation.  But  while  no  living  ani- 
mal defiled,  the  bodies  of  all  dead  animals,  not 
properly  slaughtered,  did  defile.  The  peculiar 
care  with  which  defilement  is  guarded  against 
in  the  case  of  the  carcasses  of  certain  of  the 
smaller  animals  (vers.  29-88),  seems  to  be  due 
to  the  greater  liability  to  contact  with  them.  The 
degree  of  uncleanness  occasioned  by  contact  with 
the  dead  body  of  any  animal  which  died  of  itself, 
was  the  same  in  all  cases,  vers.  25,  28,  31,  40,  even 
in  that  of  animals  otherwise  fit  for  food.  The  only 
exception  is  in  case  of  sacrificial  or  food  ani- 
mals when  properly  slaughtered,  an  exception 
obviously  necessary  unless  sacrifices  and  auimal 
food  were  to  be  prohibited.  The  Apostle  has 
expressly  taught  "that  there  is  nothing  unclean 
of  itself"  (Rom.  xiv.  14);  and  we  must  look 
therefore  for  the  ground  of  the  distinctions  made 
in  this  chapter,  not  directly  to  anything  in  the 
nature  of  the  various  animals  themselves,  but  to 
the  educational  object  of  the  law.  That  educa- 
tional object,  however,  was  of  course  best  sub- 
served by  having  regard  to  such  characteristics 
of  the  animals  as  should  make  the  lessons  to  be 
taught  most  impressive  and  most  easily  appre- 
hended.—F.  G.]. 

DOCTRINAL,   AXD   ETHICAL. 

I.  The  doctrinal  significance  of  the  distinction 
between  animals  clean  and  unclean  for  food,  must 
be  considered  in  view  of  two  facts:  first,  that  as 
far  as  food  is  concerned,  this  is  distinctly  a  part 
of  that  law  which  was  "added  because  of  trans- 
gressions." It  limited  an  earlier  freedom,  and 
it  passed  away  when  the  law  was  superseded  by 
a  higher  revelation.  Secondly,  that  for  the  time 
while  the  law  was  in  force — the  whole  period  of 
Israel's  national  existence — these  precepts  were 
elevated  into  distinctly  religious  duties,  resting 
upon  the  holiness  which  should  characterize  the 
people  of  a  holy  God  (vers.  44,  45).  These  two 
facts  can  only  be  brought  into  harmony  in  view 
of  the  educational  purpose  of  the  law.  The  peo- 
ple, in  their  spiritual  infancy,  could  only  be 
taught  purity  by  sensible  symbols,  and  among 
these  there  was  nothing  which  entered  more  tho- 
roughly into  all  the  arrangements  of  daily  life 
than  the  selection  of  food.  By  this,  therefore, 
they  were  taught  to  keep  themselves  pure  from 
all  defilement  which  God  had  forbidden. 

II.  The  evil  consequences  attending  a  neglect 
of  the  precepts  in  this  chapter  are  represented 
in  a  twofold  aspect :  First,  there  was  sin  in  dis- 
obedience to  these  as  to  any  other  divine  com- 
mands, and  this  is  described  as  making  your- 
selves abominable,  (ver.  43).  This  phrase 
precisely  is  applied  only  to  the  eating  of  creep- 
ing things,  but  is  implied  in  regard  to  the 
others  (vers.  11,  13,  23).  It  carries  with  it  the 
idea  that  he  who  offended  in  these  matters  put 
himself  in  that  relation  towards  God  in   which 


CHAP.  XI.  1-47. 


9-3 


these  things  intended  to  stand  towards  man: — 
he  had  sinued  by  transgression,  and  thus  made 
himself  an  abomination.  The  other  aspect  is 
thai  of  the  violation  of  the  theocratic  order,  and 
here  the  penalty  is  very  light.  TUe  kind  of  uu 
cleanness  conlracied  in  any  of  these  instances 
found  a  sufficient  purification  in  any  case  by  the 
washing  of  the  clothes  and  remaining  unclean  until 
the  evening.  In  cases  of  a  secondary  defilement 
of  other  things,  they  also  must  be  similarly  pu- 
rified, or  be  destroyed.  Even  the  eating  of  a 
clean  animal  which  had  died  a  natural  death  re- 
quired no  deeper  purification.  Here,  then,  the 
line  is  very  distinctly  drawn  between  ceremonial 
defilement  and  moral  sin,  even  when  both  were 
incurred  by  the  same  act. 

III.  All  commands  to  holiness,  whether  ex- 
pressed by  symbolical  act,  or  to  be  wrought  out 
in  the  efforts   of  the  spirit,  rest  upon  the  same 

ground,  For  I  am  the  Lord  your  God 

I  am  holy.— This  is  the  teaching  alike  of  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  and  again  brings 
out  in  a  striking  way  the  impossibility  of  any 
true  communion  between  G"d  and  man  except  on 
the  basis  of  man's  restoration  to  holiness.  This 
teaching  has  been  already  seen  to  be  the  object 
of  the  Levitical  law  in  regard  to  sacrifices,  and 
it  is  here  none  the  less  so  when  the  law  enters 
into  the  details  of  man's  daily  life. 

IV.  While  the  uncleannesses  here  enumerated 
were  purged  simply  and  speedily  if  attended  to 
at  once,  if  neglected,  they  required  (v.  2)  the 
more  serious  expiation  of  tbe  sin  offering.  Such 
is  the  nature  of  sin;  like  leaven,  it  is  ever  prone 
to  spread  and  intensify  its  effects. 

V.  "  The  cleanness  of  the  animals  for  sacrifice 
and  the  purification  of  the  sacrificer.  Chaps, 
xi. — xvi." 

"Through  sacrifice  Israel  is  made  holy,  i.  <•., 
they  become  in  the  fellowship  of  a  personal  God, 
a  people  of  personal  dignity  belonging  to  God. 
The  preliminary  condition  of  sanctification  by 
fire  is  the  purification  especially  produced  by 
water  and  blood.  Only  clean,  or  rather,  purified 
men  can  serve  as  sacrifioers  in  the  presentation 
of  clean  animals." 

"Clean  men  must  be  circumcised,  sanctified 
by  the  symbol  of  circumcision  to  the  new  birth 
under  the  power  of  Jehovah,  and  thus  especially 
taken  out  from  the  confusion  of  the  unclean 
world  ;  and  so,  too,  the  clean  animals,  as  animals 
of  civilization,  form  a  contrast  to  the  unclean 
creation,  as  the  elite  of  domestic  animals,  some 
of  which  are  too  human,  too  sympathetic  (horse, 
ass,  and  dog),  while  swine  are  too  brutally  un- 
clean to  become  domestic  animals  for  the  Is- 
raelites." 

"  Cleanness  is  thenegative  side  of  holiness,  and 
so  purification  is  the  negative  side  of  sanctifica- 
tion."    Lauge,  Dogmalik  zum  Lev. 

HOMILETICAL   AND    PRACTICAL. 

The  homiletical  teachiog  of  this  chapter  may 
be  briefly  summed  up  in  the  weighty  words  of 
the  Apostolic  proverb  (1  Cor.  xv.  33)  "  Evil  com- 
munications corrupt  good  manners."  It  is  easy 
to  deceive  ourselves  here.  It  is  easy  to  work 
out  plausible  reasons  why  particular  divine  com- 
mands  may  not   be   founded    in    the   nature  of 


things,  and  hence  may  not  be  of  binding  force 
upon  us.  But  all  God's  commands  are  binding, 
and  he  who  chooses  to  violate  them,  however 
unimportant  they  may  seem  to  him  to  be,  incurs 
the  risk  of  making  himself  an  abomination. 

Sins  in  matters  of  little  importance,  intrinsi- 
cally and  inadvertently  committed,  may,  through 
the  means  which  God  has  provided,  be  readily 
put  away  on  repentance,  and  a  true  seeking  of 
restored  communion  ;  but  if  neglected,  or  passed 
over  because  they  seem  of  little  moment,  they 
lead  to  a  heavier  guiltiness. 

The  defiling  effect  of  personal  contact  with 
that  which  is  unclean  is  set  forth  in  this  chapter. 
Origen,  in  treating  of  it,  calls  attention  to  the 
corresponding  effect  of  contact  with  that  which 
is  holy  as  illustrated  by  the  restoration  to  life 
of  the  body  of  the  man  which  touched  the  bones 
of  Elisha"(2  Kings  xiii.  21),  and  of  the  woman 
whose  issue  of  blood  was  staunched  when  she 
had  touched  the  hem  of  the  Saviour's  garment 
(Matt.  ix.  20).  Both  serve  to  show  the  influence 
exerted  upon  us  by  our  associations;  the  spirit, 
as  surely  as  the  body  is  defiled  by  contact  with 
the  unclean,  and  elevated  by  association  with  the 
pure. 

Certain  moral  qualities  of  men  are  commonly 
described  by  reference  to  the  animal  creation. 
As  this  is  frequently  done  in  the  New  Testament 
(Matt.  vii.  15;  x.  16;  xxiii.  33;  Luke  xiii.  32; 
Phil.  iii.  2  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  22,  etc.),  so  it  appears  al- 
ways to  have  been  common  among  mankind. 
Therefore,  in  the  classification  as  clean,  of  those 
animals  associated  with  excellent  qualities,  and 
as  unclean  of  those  associated  with  evil  qualities, 
a  praise  of  virtue  and  a  condemnation  of  evil  was 
introduced  into  the  domestic  associations  of  tbe 
daily  life.  The  necessity  of  such  teaching  has 
passed  away  with  the  coming  of  the  clearer  light 
of  the  Gospel. 

Parting  the  hoof  and  chewing  the  cud  are  two 
marks  of  the  clean  animal  which  go  together, 
and  must  both  be  found  :  though  one  may  be 
apparently  possessed,  yet  if  the  other  is  wanting, 
the  animal  is  unclean.  This  Origen  applies  to 
one  who  meditates  upon  and  understands  the 
Scriptures,  but  does  not  order  his  life  in  accord- 
ance with  their  teaching.  So  it  may  be  applied 
to  faith  and  works  ;  neither  can  truly  exist  with- 
out the  other,  and  the  semblance  of  either  alone 
is  unavailing. 

Positive  Divine  laws,  simply  as  laws,  and  even 
without  regard  to  their  immediate  object,  have 
a  high  moral  value  from  their  educationary 
power.  From  the  garden  of  Eden  down,  man 
has  been  always  subjected  to  such  laws.  As 
disobedience  to  them  has  resulted  in  harm,  and 
placed  the  transgressor  in  an  attitude  of  opposi- 
tion to  God ;  so  has  the  faithful  effort  to  obey 
them  resulted  in  blessing,  and  brought,  those 
who  have  undertaken  it  into  nearer  relations 
to  God.  Whether  the  ground  of  the  com- 
mand could  be  understood,  or  whether  the 
act  enjoined  or  forbidden  might  seem  to  man 
morally  colorless,  yet  the  simple  habit  of  obe- 
dience ha9  always  had  a  most  salutary  effect. 
"A  law,  the  fitness  and  utility  of  which  we 
cannot  discover  by  our  natural  reason,  is  more 
a  test  of  the  spirit  of  obedience  than  a  moral  re- 
quirement that  commends  itself  to  our  judgment 


93 


LEVITICUS. 


as  good  and  proper;  because  our  compliance 
with  the  latter  may  be  but  a  compliment  to  our 
own  intelligence,  and  not  at  all  an  act  of  defer- 
ence to  the  divine  authority."  Hallam.  The 
multitude  of  daily  demands  made  upon  the 
obedience  of  the  Israelites  offered  to  them  a 
great  opportunity  of  blessing,  and  is  repeatedly 
declared  to  have  been  a  test  whether  they  had  a 
heart  to  do  God's  will  or  no.     Under  the  higher 


dispensation  of  the  Gospel  we  are  allowed  to  see 
more  clearly  the  grounds  of  the  Divine  com- 
mands; nevertheless,  the  opportunities  of  ren- 
dering obedience,  simply  as  obedience,  without 
seeing  the  grounds  upon  which  the  command 
rests,  is  by  no  means  entirely  withdrawn  from 
the  Christian.  Such  opportunities  improved  are 
means  of  blessing,  and  become  to  us  one  of  the 
many  ways  in  which  we  "  walk  by  faith  and  not 
by  sight." 


SECOND   SECTION. 

"  The  purification  and  cleanness  of  the  human  conditions  of  the  offerers.      The  lying-in  women.      The 
leprosy  in  men,  in  garments,  in  houses.     Sexual  impurities  and  purifica- 
tions.    Chaps.  XII. — XV." — Lange. 

Laws  of  Purification  after  Childbirth. 
Chapter  XII. 
1,  2    And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
saying,  If  a  woman  have  conceived1  seed,  and  born  a  man  child,  then  she  shall  be 
unclean  seven  days ;  according  to  [as2]  the  days  of  the  separation  for  her  infirmity 

3  shall  she  be  unclean.     And  in  the  eighth  day  the  flesh  of  his  foreskin  shall  be  cir- 

4  cumcised.  And  she  shall  then  continue  in3  the  blood  of  her  purifying  three  and 
thirty  days  ;  she  shall  touch  no  hallowed  thing,  nor  come  into  the  sanctuary,  until 

5  the  days  of  her  purifying  be  fulfilled.  But  if  she  bear  a  maid  child,  then  she  shall 
be  unclean  two  weeks,  as  in  her  separation :  and  she  shall  continue  in  the  blood  of 

6  her  purifying  threescore  and  six  days.  And  when  the  days  of  her  purifying  are 
fulfilled,  for  a  son,  or  for  a  daughter,  she  shall  bring  a  lamb  [sheep*]  of  the  first 
year  for  a  burnt  offering,  and  a  young  pigeon,  or  a  turtledove,  for  a  sin  offering, 

7  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  unto  the  priest :  who  shall  offer 
it  before  the  Lord,  and  6make  an  atonement  for  her ;  and  she  shall  be  cleansed 
from  the  issue  of  her  blood.     This  is  the  law  for  her  that  hath   born  a  male  or  a 

8  female.  And  if  she  be  not  able  to  bring  a  lamb  [one  of  the  flock6],  then  she  shall 
bring  two  turtles,  or  two  young  pigeons;  the  one  for  the  burnt  offering,  and  the 
other  for  a  sin  offering :  and  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  her,  and  she 
shall  be  clean. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  2.  JTITil.  The  Sam.  hero  has  the  Niphal.    Comp.  Gen.  i.  11  for  similar  use  of  Hiphil. 

2  Yer.  2.  *ryil.  The  text  iustitutes  a  comparison,  saying  that  the  one  is  the  same  as  the  other,  rather  than  makes  one 
the  law  for  the  oth>-r. 

3  Ver.  4.  7M.  There  is  no  distinction  in  the  A.  V.  between  this  and  the  preposition  of  the  preceding  verse.    Two  MSS. 
read  here  also  *0^2  as  iQ  ver.  4. 

*  Ver.  6.  b23-    See  Textual  Note  6  on  iii.  7. 

'  Ver.  7.  One  JIS.,  the  Sam.,  LXX.,  and  Syr.,  here  snpply  the  word  priest,  which  is  necessarily  understood  from  the 
connection. 

<  Ver.  8.  HD  a  different  word  from  that  in  ver.  C,  and  used  either  of  sheep  or  goats,  but  according  to  FUr;t,  only  of  the 

young  of  either. 

The  previous  chapter  was  addressed  to  Moses 
and  Aaron  conjointly,  and  so  is  the  following, 
t lie  latter  part  of  ch.  xiv.  (beginning  at  ver.  33), 
and  ch.  xv. ;  the  present  chapter  and  the  earlier 
part  of  ch.  xiv.  are  addressed  to  Moses  alone. 
The  reason  of  this  difference  seems  to  lie  in  the 
fact  that  the  parts  addressed  to  Mn?es  alone  ar-j 
simple  commands  given  to  him  as  the  legislator. 


EXEGETICAL   AND    CRITICAL. 

Here  begins  a  new  paraihah  of  the  law  extend- 
ing to  xiii.  fift ;  t lie  parallel  section  of  the  pro- 
phets is  2  Kings  iv.  4'2 — v.  in,  a  prominent  sub- 
ject of  which  is  the  cleansing  of  Naaman  from 
his  leprosy. 


CHAP.  XII.  1-8. 


97 


requiring  no  exercise  of  judgment  in  their  appli- 
cation ;  while  those  addressed  to  both  called  for 
more  or  less  of  a  discrimination  which  was 
entrusted  by  the  law  to  the  priests. 

The  previous  chapter  treated  of  uncleanness 
of  men  arising  from  the  lower  animals  which, 
if  attended  to  promptly,  in  no  case  required 
more  for  its  purification  than  ablutions,  and 
continued  only  until  evening.  This  and  the 
three  following  chapters  treat  of  uncleauness 
arising  from  the  human  body,  in  most  cases 
requiring  expiatory  sacrifices  with  various,  and 
often  prolonged,  periods  before  the  purification 
became  complete.  The  various  sources  of  this 
defilement  are:  child-bearing  (xii.);  leprosy 
(xiii.,  xiv.);  and  certain  secretions  (xv.);  to 
these  is  added  in  Num.  xix.  11-16  the  most  in- 
tense of  all  defilements,  that  arising  from  con- 
tact with  a  human  corpse.  The  omission  of  a 
vast  mass  of  other  sources  of  impurity,  and 
restriction  of  rites  of  purification  to  these  few, 
certainly  indicates  (as  Keil  has  shown)  that 
these  are  not  simply  regulations  for  the  promo- 
tion of  cleanliness,  or  of  good  morals  and  de- 
cency, but  had  a  higher  symbolical  and  educa- 
tional meaning.  The  defilement  of  child-bearing, 
which  occupies  the  present  chapter,  is  placed 
first  not  only  because  birth  is  the  natural  start- 
ing point  for  the  treatment  of  all  that  concerns 
the  human  body,  but  also  plainly  to  prevent  any 
possible  confusion  between  this  defilement  and 
those  mentioned  in  ch.  xv.  19-30.  There  is  in- 
deed a  certain  degree  of  connection  between  the 
two,  and  this  made  it  all  the  more  necessary 
that  this  should  be  treated  by  itself,  as  being  a 
different  thing  and  resting  upon  different 
grounds. 

In  regard  to  purifications  in  general,  Kalisch 
Bays:  "Next  to  sacrifices,  purifications  were 
the  most  important  part  of  Hebrew  rituals. 
Whenever  both  were  prescribed  together,  the 
latter  appeared  indeed  as  merely  preparatory  to 
the  former,  since  sacrifices  were  deemed  the 
main  agency  of  restored  peace  or  holiness;  but 
purification?,  like  offerings,  were  frequently 
ordained  as  separate  and  independent  acts  of 
worship:  closely  entwined  with  the  thoughts 
and    habits    of   the    Hebrews,    they    formed   an 

essential  part  of  their  religious  system 

The  Hebrews  '  purified,'  or,  as  they  understood 
the  term,  sanctified  themselves,  whenever  they 
desired  to  rise  to  the  Deity,  that  is,  before 
solemn  ceremonies  and  seasons,  as  sacrifices  and 
festivals  (Gen.  xxxv.  2-4;  1  Sam.  xvi.  5;  comp. 
2  Chron.  xxx.  17);  or  whenever  they  expected 
the  Deity  to  descend  to  them  by  some  superna- 
tural manifestation,  as  a  disclosure  of  heavenly 
wisdom,  or  a  deed  of  miraculous  power  and  help 
(Ex.  xix.  10,  14,  15;  Josh.  iii.  6;  vii.  13). 
Therefore,  when  in  a  state  of  impurity,  they 
were  forbidden  to  enter  the  sanctuary,  to  keep 
the  Passover,  and  to  partake  of  holy  food,  whe- 
ther of  sacrificial  meat,  of  sacred  offerings  and 
gifts,  or  of  shew  bread,  because  the  clean  only 
were  fit  to  approach  the  holy  God  and  all  that 
appertains  to  Him  (Lev.  vii.  19-21 ;  xxii.  3  ss. ; 
Num.  ix.  6  ss. ;  xviii.  11,  13;  1  Sam.  xxi.  5)." 
Later  he  adds:  "  If  compared  with  the  purifica- 
tory laws  of  other  nations,  those  of  the  Penta- 
teuch appear  in  a  favorable  light They 


exhibit  no  vestige  of  a  dualism  ;  in  every  detail 
they  are  stamped  by  the  monotheistic  creed; 
God  alone,  the  merciful,  wise  and  omnipotent 
Ruler,  sends  trials  and  diseases ;  and  no  evil 
genius  has  the  power  of  causing  uncleanness. 
They  are  singular  in  the  noble  principles  on 
which  they  are  framed — the  perfection  and  holi- 
ness of  God ;  and  they  are  thereby  raised  above 
frivolity  and  unmeaning  formalism.  Moreover, 
it  would  be  unjust  to  deny  that  they  were  un- 
derstood as  symbols,  or  as  means  of  sanctifica- 
tion  ;  to  defile  oneself  and  to  sin,  and  also  to 
cleanse  and  to  hallow,  are  frequently  used  as 
equivalents.  They  must  be  pronounced  simple 
if  considered  Bide  by  side  with  those  of  the  Par- 
sees,  the  Hindoos,  the  Egyptians,  or  the  Tal- 
mud." 

The  connection  here  hinted  at  between  un- 
cleanness and  sin,  between  purity  and  holiness, 
is  a  very  important  one.  It  rests  partly  on  a 
symbolism  which  finds  place  in  all  languages, 
and  is  abundantly  recognized  in  the  diction  of 
the  New  Testament ;  and  partly  upon  that  actual 
connection  existing  between  the  soul  and  the 
body  (spoken  of  in  the  last  chapter),  whereby 
the  one  is  deeply  affected  by  the  state  and  con- 
dition of  the  other.  In  both  respects  the  edu- 
cational value  of  the  Levitical  laws  of  purity  to 
a  people  in  their  spiritual  infancy  were  of  the 
utmost  value.  The  importance  of  the  symbolism 
was  further  enhanced  by  the  broad  distinction 
made  between  defilements  arising  from  human 
and  those  from  other  sources,  and  connecting 
the  sin  offering  only  with  the  former. 

This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts:  vers.  1-5 
relate  to  the  time  of  seclusion,  vers.  6-8  to  the 
means  of  purification.  The  following  are  Lange's 
Exegetical  Notes  on  the  chapter  in  full : 

"  The  origin  of  life  makes  man  unclean  in 
regard  to  his  theocratic  right  of  communion; 
just  as  death,  or  the  touch  of  the  dead,  and  no 
less  that  which  impairs  life — sickness,  especially 
as  it  is  represented  by  the  leprosy,  and  so  also 
every  disturbance  of  the  springs  of  life.  But 
this  surely  does  not  mean  that  finite  life  itself 
was  thought  of  as  unclean,  and  that  it  must 
therefore  be  reconciled  to  the  universal  life 
(Eaehr  II.,  p.  461,  opposed  to  which  Sommer 
and  Keil) ;  and  it  also  does  not  mean  that  ori- 
ginal sin  alone  has  produced  all  this  darkening 
of  life,  although  the  natural  condition  appears 
here  throughout  laden  with  sinfulness;  since 
we  find  directions  for  the  purification  of  lying- 
in  women  among  the  most  different  nations  (see 
Knobel,  p.  466)."  [The  following  brief  sum- 
mary of  some  of  these  is  given  by  Clark:  "  The 
Hindoo  law  pronounced  the  mother  of  a  new- 
born child  to  be  impure  for  forty  days,  required 
the  father  to  bathe  as  soon  as  the  birth  had 
taken  place,  and  debarred  the  whole  family  for 
a  period  from  religious  rites,  while  they  were 
to  'confine  themselves  to  an  inward  remem- 
brance of  the  Deity :'  in  a  Brahmin  family  this 
rule  extended  to  all  relations  within  the  fourth 
degree,  for  ten  days,  at  the  end  of  which  they 
had  to  bathe.  According  to  the  Parsee  law,  the 
mother  and  child  were  bathed,  and  the  mother 
had  to  live  in  seclusion  for  forty  days,  after 
which  she  had  to  undergo  other  purifying  rites. 
The  Arabs  are  said,  by  Burckhardt  to  regard 


98 


LEVITICUS. 


the  mother  as  unclean  for  forty  days.  The 
ancient  Greeks  suffered  neither  child-birth  nor 
death  to  take  place  within  consecrated  places: 
both  mother  and  child  were  bathed,  and  the 
mother  was  not  allowed  to  approach  an  altar 
for  forty  days.  The  term  of  forty  days,  it  is 
evident,  was  generally  regarded  as  a  critical 
one  for  both  the  mother  and  the  child. — The  day 
on  which  the  Romans  gave  the  name  to  the 
child,  the  eighth  day  for  a  girl,  and  the  ninth 
for  a  boy,  was  called  lustricus  dies,  '  the  day  of 
purification,'  because  certain  lustral  rites  in 
behalf  of  the  child  were  performed  on  the  occa- 
sion, and  some  sort  of  offering  was  made.  The 
Amphidromia  of  the  Greeks  was  a  similar  lustra- 
tion for  the  child,  when  the  name  was  given, 
probably  between  the  seventh  and  tenth  days 
(Menu  v.  62;  Ayeen  Akbery,  Vol.  II.,  p.  556; 
Zend  Avesta,  ap.  Bahr  ;  Thuoid.  III.  104;  Eurip. 
Iph.  Taur.  382;  Callim.  Hym.  ad  Jov.  16,  llijm. 
ad  Del.  123  ;  Censorin.  De  Die  Nat.  c.  xi.,  p.  51 ; 
Celsus,  II.  1 ;  Festus,  s.  Lustrici  Dies  with  the 
note  in  Lindemann,  II.  480;  Smith,  Diet,  of 
Antiq.  s.  Amphidromia)." — F.  G.] — "But,  in 
general,  by  this  establishment  of  the  unclean- 
ness  of  the  natural  processes  of  birth  and  death, 
the  truth  was  expressed,  that  the  ideal  life  of 
man  was  already  a  kind  of  immortal  life,  which 
had  to  raise  itself  above  the  natural  conditions 
of  human  life — the  natural  side  of  his  being — 
and  set  itself  in  opposition  thereto." 

"  If  now  any  one  says  that  all  these  regula- 
tions are  not  to  be  considered  under  the  aspect 
of  sanitary  or  dietetic,  but  only  of  typical  or 
religious  precepts,  we  must  hold  this  antithesis 
to  be  thoroughly  false ;  there  are  plain  indica- 
tions that  always,  from  the  tree  of  knowledge 
down,  especially  from  the  circumcision,  the  one 
particular  was  joined  with  the  other." 

"  Ver.  2  ss.  In  regard  to  the  uncleanness  of 
lying-in  women,  in  the  first  place  there  are  two 
conditions  to  be  distinguished:  first,  the  time 
of  their  especial  sickness;  secondly,  the  time 
of  their  recovery  through  the  blood  (the  issue 
of  blood)  of  their  purification.  These  times  dif- 
fer according  as  she  has  borne  a  sou  or  a  daugh- 
ter. If  the  child  be  a  boy,  the  time  of  her  espe- 
cial sickness  is  fixed  at  seven  days,  exactly  like 
the  regulation  in  regard  to  the  monthly  courses. 
Then  on  the  eighth  day  the  circumcision  of  the 
boy  was  to  follow,  and  from  that  time  for  thirty- 
three  days — the  eighth  day  reckoned  in — she 
was  to  remain  at  home  with  the  boy,  engaged 
in  a  constant  process  of  recovery  and  purifica- 
tion. But  why  are  the  seven  days  of  her  espe- 
cial uncleanness  doubled  to  two  weeks  by  the 
birth  of  a  girl?  It  is  said  that  this  has  its 
foundation  in  the  belief  of  antiquity  that  "the 
bloody  and  watery  issues  last  longer  after  the 
birth  of  a  female  than  of  a  male"  (see  the  cita- 
tions from  Hippocrates  [op.  ed.  Kiihn.  i.  p. 
393],  Aristotle  [Hut.  anim.  vi.  22;  vii.  3],  and 
Burdach  [Physiologic  III.,  p.  34]  in  Keil). 
Whether  this  view  formed  a  natural  reason  for 
the  above  regulation  or  not,  there  was  certainly 
also  a  theocratic  reason  of  in  ports  nee:  i  he  hoy  was 
circumcised — the  girl  was  not  ;  for  this-  the  twice 
seven  days  might  form  an  equivalent.  The  girl  was 
BO  far  a  Jewess,  but  not  yet  an  Israelitess  "  [i.  e. 
a  descendant  of  Abraham  after  the  flesh,  but  not 


yet  incorporated  with  the  chosen  people. — F.  G.]. 
"  It  was  now  moreover  the  proper  consequence 
that  the  thirty-three  days  of  recovery  were 
doubled  to  sixty-six  days,  wherein,  indeed,  the 
law  of  circumcision  is  still  more  strongly  re- 
flected. The  totality  of  the  forty  days  of  purifi- 
cation at  the  birth  of  a  boy  corresponds  to  the 
former  explanation  of  the  forty  days  in  the  life 
of  Moses  and  Elijah  :  it  is  the  symbolical  time 
of  purification,  of  exclusion  from  the  world,  as 
it  was  extended  for  the  whole  people  to  forty 
years.  And  the  doubling  of  the  forty  days  in 
the  case  of  the  new-born  girl  explains  itself,  if 
forty  days  are  reckoned  for  the  girl  and  forty 
for  the  mother;  a  doubling  which  could  not  be 
applied  to  the  circumcised  boy.  Moreover,  the 
cooperation  of  the  physical  view,  already  noticed, 
may  be  also  taken  into  consideration."  [It  is 
particularly  to  be  noticed  that  the  uncleanness 
continued  only  seven  or  fourteen  days.  During 
this  time  it  appears  from  the  analogy  of  xv.  19- 
24,  the  woman  was  unclean  in  the  sense  that 
every  person  and  thing  touched  by  her  became 
itself  unclean  and  capable  of  communicating  de- 
filement. After  this  period,  the  woman  was  no 
longer  unclean,  but  might  perform  at  home  all 
the  ordinary  duties  of  domestic  life;  only  she 
was  forbidden  to  approach  the  sanctuary  (i.  e., 
the  court  of  the  tabernacle)  until  the  time  of  her 
purification.  The  suggestion  of  Lange  (which 
was  also  the  opinion  of  Calvin)  that  the  differ- 
ence in  the  length  of  time  for  the  uncleanness 
and  the  purification  at  the  birth  of  a  boy  or  a- 
girl  was  due  to  the  fact  of  the  boy's  being  for- 
mally received  into  the  visible  Church  of  God 
by  circumcision,  is  a  complete  and  satisfactory 
solution  of  a  long-vexed  question;  but  this  so- 
lution necessarily  carries  with  it  the  determina- 
tion that  the  law  had  respect  to  the  child  as  well 
as  to  the  mother.  To  this  two  objections«are  pro- 
posed :  first,  the  case  of  still-born  children  ;  but 
this  was  so  exceptional  that  there  was  no  occa- 
sion to  provide  for  it  in  the  law.  When  it  did 
occur — if  the  principle  above  given  is  correct — 
there  being  no  child  for  whom  purification  was 
required,  the  time  would  probably  have  been  re- 
duced to  that  which  was  considered  necessary 
for  the  mother  alone.  The  other  objection  arises 
from  the  necessity  of  including  the  infant  Jesus 
in  the  purification  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  Luke  ii. 
22  (where  it  is  very  observable  that  the  Evange- 
list docs  not  hesitate  to  say  tov  Ka6apia/iov  av- 
rav*),  but  this  is  easily  disposed  of  on  the  prin- 
ciple announced  by  Himself  in  regard  to  His 
baptism  that  "thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all 
righteousness"  (Matt.  iii.  15).  This  is  the  view 
taken  by  S.  Augustine  (Qusest.  in  Hept.  L.  III. 
40).— F.  G.]. 

"  Ver.  6.  The  equalization  of  girls  with  boys 
appears  again  in  the  appointed  completing  sacri- 
fice." [That  is,  in  the  time  at  which  it  was  of- 
fered ;  there  was  no  distinction  in  the  sacrifice 
itself. — F.  G.].  "And  in  this  there  is  not  first 
a  sin  offering  brought,  and  then  a  burnt  offering, 
as  in  the  trespass  offerings  ;  but  first  a  costly 
burnt  offering,  as  the  expression  of  the  conse- 
cration of  the  new  life ; — namely,  a  year  old 
lamb,  and   then  a  sin  offering  small   in   propor- 


*  Id  note  on  Luke  ii.  2'2  the  viow  taken  by  Oosterzee  is 
that  the  plural  refers  to  Mary  aui  Joseph. 


CHAP.  XII.  1-8. 


99 


tion,  a  young  pigeon,  or  a  turtle-dove."  [This 
order  of  tbe  offerings  is  a  remarkable  deviation 
from  the  general  principle  that  when  the  two  of- 
ferings came  together,  the  sin  offering  always 
preceded.  The  reason  of  this  exception  appears 
to  lie  in  the  fact  that  at  the  birth  of  a  child  feel- 
ings of  joy  and  gratitude  are  naturally  upper- 
most ;  the  thought  of  the  child's  heritage  of  sin- 
fulness comes  afterward. — F.  G.].  "Only  in 
case  of  necessity  was  the  burnt  offering  reduced 
and  made  the  same  as  in  the  sin  offering."  [This 
necessity  seems  to  have  been  liberally  interpre- 
ted by  custom,  and  the  smaller  offering  to  have 
been  allowed  generally  to  the  humbler  classes 
of  society.  Comp.  Luke  ii.  22-24.  The  time  of 
the  offering  also  could  not  be  before  the  fortieth 
or  the  eightieth  day,  but  only  a  very  strict  con- 
struction of  the  law  could  forbid  its  being  defer- 
red to  a  later  period  for  those  living  at  a  distance 
from  the  sanctuary,  as  appears  to  have  been 
done  at  the  birth  of  Samuel,  1  Sam.  i.  22-25. — 
F.  G.].  "  That  bearing  and  being  born,  as  well 
as  being  unclean  through  sickness  and  touching 
the  dead,  could  not  be  thought  of  without  human 
complicity  in  sin,  or  at  least  in  guilt,  was  set 
forth  by  this  law  ;  but  how  gently  was  this  judg- 
ment expressed  !  If  it  is  now  said  of  this  sacri- 
fice from  one  point  of  view:  for  a  son,  for  a 
daughter  [ver.  6],  and  then  again  so  she  shall 
be  clean  [ver.  8],  so  again  is  the  time,  jusl  as 
much  as  the  sacrifice  of  purification,  designated 
as  common  for  mother  and  child.  Keil  is  thus 
incorrect  when  he  supposes  that  the  woman  did 
not  require  purification  for  the  child,  but  only 
for  herself.  According  to  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  Levitical  law,  it  could  not  be  con- 
ceived that  a  clean  child  lay  on  the  breast  of  an 
uuclean  mother.  In  this  very  community  of  the 
Levitical  uncleanness,  this  inner  fellowship  be- 
tween mother  and  child  is  raised  above  the  sup- 
posed separation  in  their  condition.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  the  thing  here  treated  of  is  indefinite 
sinfulness,  but  not  "  sins  becoming  known  indi- 
rectly in  the  corporeal  manifestation  of  them." 

"  Upon  the  laws  of  purity  among  other  nations 
in  regard  to  women  in  childbed,  see  Knobel,  p. 
4G6,  and  so  too  on  the  circumcision,  p.  407." 

DOCTRINAL   AND    ETHICAL. 

I.  "  The  theocratic  law  is  joined  throughout 
with  the  sanitary  law,  without  giving  up  its  pre- 
dominating and  symbolical  Levitical  signification. 
In  the  law  of  lying-in  women  there  comes  espe- 
cially into  notice  the  connection  or  unity  between 
mother  and  child,  and  the  difference  between 
tbe  man-child  and  the  woman-child.  See  the 
Exegetical."   Lange. 

II.  "  The  doctrine,  echoed  in  a  hundred 
creeds,  that  'Purity  is,  next  to  life,  the  highest 
boon  of  man,'  was  among  them  also  [the  Isra- 
elites] a  truth  and  a  reality."   Kalisch, 

III.  "  The  fall  casts  a  shade  of  impenetrable 
darkness  over  the  birth  of  a  child  of  man.  All 
that  reason  can  say  is,  that  this  is  another  child 


of  sin  and  heir  of  death.  .  .  .  The  mother  in  Is- 
rael is  here  taught  that  while  there  is  impurity 
and  guilt  connected  with  the  bearer  and  the  born 
of  the  fallen  race,  yet  there  is  a  propitiation  on 
which  she  may  rely  for  herself  and  for  her  off- 
spring, and  a  purification  which  she  has  for  her- 
self, and  may  confidently  expect  for  her  child, 
while  she  traius  him  up  in  the  way  he  should 
go."  Murphy. 

IV.  This  chapter  shows  clearly  in  the  differ- 
ence between  the  times  of  uncleanness  and  of 
purification  at  the  birth  of  a  boy  and  of  a  girl, 
the  difference  in  relation  to  the  ancient  church 
brought  about  by  circumcision.  The  Christian 
church  has  taken  the  place  of  the  Jewish,  and 
baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision  ;  the 
same  relation  therefore  may  be  expected  to  hold 
between  these. 

V.  Inasmuch  as  a  sin  offering  was  to  be  pre- 
sented conjointly  for  the  mother  and  the  new- 
born child,  the  doctrine  of  original  tin  is  plainly 
taught  in  this  law.  Origen  (Horn.  viii.  in  Lev., 
\  3)  draws  the  same  conclusion  from  the  fact 
that  baptism  is  appointed  "for  the  remission  of 
sins,"  and  yet  is  administered  to  infants. 

HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

As  the  primeval  curse  on  sin  fell,  for  the  wo- 
man, on  child-bearing,  bo  in  child-bearing  she 
becomes  by  the  law  unclean,  and  must  present 
for  her  purification  a  tin  offering.  That  curse 
remains  and  still  clings  to  every  child  of  sin 
coming  into  the  world;  for  purification  resort 
must  be  had  to  that  true  Propitiation  for  sin 
of  which  the  sin  offering  was  a  type. 

"As  the  mother  and  her  child  emerge  out  of 
the  impurity,  she  learns  to  hope  for  the  day  when 
both  will  emerge  out  of  the  bondage  and  corrup- 
tion of  sin;  as  the  child  is  circumcised  on  the 
eighth  day,  the  confiding  parents  pray  and  wait 
and  watch  and  work  for  the  circumcision  of  the 
heart,  which  is  hopefully  foreshadowed  by  the 
outward  rite  ;  as  the  mother  offers  her  burnt 
sacrifice  and  sin  sacrifice  she  rejoices  in  the 
knowledge  that  there  is  a  propitiation  that  is 
sufficient  for  her,  and  for  her  children,  and  fir 
her  children's  children  to  all  generations." 
Murphy. 

"  The  priestly  people  of  God  have  always  a  war 
to  wage  with  the  defilements  of  the  natural  life. 
Even  the  uncleanness  which  belongs  to  the  na- 
tural vigor  of  a  lying-in  woman,  and  to  a  new- 
born child,  must  be  taken  away  and  atoned  for." 
Lange. 

In  accordance  with  this  law,  "  on  the  fortieth 
day  after  His  birth  from  the  Blessed  Virgin's 
womb,  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  our  Emmanuel, 
was  presented  in  the  substance  of  our  flesh  ;  and 
on  the  fortieth  day  after  His  resurrection,  or 
birth  from  the  grave  (Col.  i.  18;  Rev.  i.  5),  He 
was  presented  in  our  flesh  in  the  heavenly  sanc- 
tuary, and  we  were  presented  in  Him  in  the 
dress  of  a  cleansed  and  glorified  humanity." 
^Yol•dsworth. 


100 


LEVITICUS. 


THIRD    SECTION. 

Laws    Concerning    Leprosy 

Chaps.  XIII.,  XIV. 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE. 


The  disease  of  leprosy  has  happily  become  so 
rare  in  modern  times  in  the  better  known  parts 
of  the  world  that  much  obscurity  rests  upon  its 
pathology.  The  attempt  will  only  be  made  here 
to  point  out  those  matters  which  may  be  consi- 
dered as  fixed  by  common  consent,  but  which 
will  be  found  sufficient  for  the  illustration  of  the 
more  important  points  in.  the  following  chapters. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  it  appears  indisputable 
that  leprosy  is  a  broad  name  covering  several  va- 
rieties of  disease  more  or  less  related  to  one 
another.  These  are  separable  into  two  main 
classes,  one  covering  the  different  forms  of  Ele- 
phantiasis (tuberculated  and  anaesthetic) ;  the 
other,  the  Lepra  vulgaris.  Psoriasis,  Syphilis,  etc. 
It  is  the  former  class  alone  with  which  Leviticus 
has  to  do  as  a  disease.  At  the  present  time  the 
tuberculated  variety  is  said  to  be  the  more  com- 
mon in  those  countries  in  which  leprosy  still  ex- 
ists to  any  considerable  extent,  while  the  anaes- 
thetic was  probably  more  prevalent  in  the  time 
of  Moses.  The  latter  is  described  by  Celsus  un- 
der the  name  of  ?.evKn,  and  Keil  maintains  that 
the  laws  of  Moses  in  regard  to  leprosy  in  man 
relate  exclusively  to  this.  Clark,  however,  has 
shown  "  that  the  two  in  a  great  number  of  cases 
work  together,  and  as  it  did  in  the  days  of 
Moses,  the  disease  appears  occasionally  in  an 
ambiguous  form."  Wilson  has  recorded  a  num- 
ber of  cases  in  detail,  showing  the  interchange 
of  the  two  forms  in  the  same  patient.  The  symp- 
toms of  the  disease  intended  by  Moses  sufficiently 
appear  in  the  text  itself,  and  if  these  symptoms 
cover  what  would  now  appear  in  medical  no- 
menclature as  different  diseases,  then  all  those 
diseases,  classified  under  the  general  name  of 
leprosy  were  intended  to  be  included  in  the  Le- 
vitical  legislation. 

Nothing  whatever  is  said  in  the  law  either  of 
the  origin,  the  contagiousness,  or  the  cure  of 
t!i"  disease.  In  modern  experience  it  seems  to 
have  been  sufficiently  proved  that  it  is  heredi- 
tary, but  only  to  the  extent  of  three  or  four  gen- 
erations, when  it  gradually  disappears;  neither 
is  it  in  all  cases  hereditary,  the  children  of  le- 
pers being  sometimes  entirely  unaffected  by 
leprosy,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  disease  often 
appealing  without  any  hereditary  taint.  In  its 
first  appearance  it  is  now  often  marked  only  by 
some  slight  "spot"  upon  the  skin,  giving  no 
pain  or  other  inconvenience,  but  obstinately  re- 
sisting all  efforts  at  removal,  and  slowly  but  ir- 
resistibly spreading.  Sometimes  months,  some- 
times years,  even  to  the  extent  of  twenty  or 
thirty  years,  intervene  between  the  first  appear- 
and of  tho  "  spots  "  and  their  development.     It 


is  not  improbable  that  in  the  course  of  many 
centuries  a  considerable  modification  in  the  ra- 
pidity of  its  progress  may  have  taken  place  in  a 
disease  which  is  found  gradually  to  die  out  by 
hereditary  transmission.  The  question  of  its 
contagiousness  is  still  much  mooted  among  the 
medical  faculty.  The  better  opinion  seems  to  be 
that  it  is  not  immediately  contagious,  but  is  pro- 
pagated by  prolonged  and  intimate  intercourse 
in  the  case  of  susceptible  persons.  At  least  it 
is  certain  that  in  all  known  instances  of  the  pre- 
valence of  the  disease  one  of  the  most  important 
of  the  means  of  control  has  been  the  segregation 
of  the  lepers,  and  where  this  precaution  has 
been  neglected,  the  disease  has  continued  to  pre- 
vail. After  the  leprosy  has  once  acquired  a  cer- 
tain degree  of  development,  there  is  no  known 
means  of  cure.  Everything  hitherto  attempted 
has  been  found  to  rather  aggravate  than  miti- 
gate the  disorder.  It  is  asserted  that,  it  yields 
to  medical  treatment  in  its  earliest  stages  when 
the  "spots"  first  appear,  and  a  number  of  dis- 
tinct cases  of  cure  are  recorded ;  but  the  doubt 
will  always  remain  whether  the  disease  which 
yields  is  really  leprosy,  or  whether  something 
else  has  not  been  confounded  with  an  undevel- 
oped stage  of  the  true  disease.  However  this 
may  be,  it  is  certain  that  after  it  has  once  be- 
come developed  to  any  considerable  extent  it  is 
incurable  by  any  remedies  at  present  known, 
although  spontaneous  cures  do  sometimes  occur. 
The  reliance  for  its  control  is  more  upon  diet, 
cleanliness,  and  general  regimen,  than  upon  spe- 
cific antidotes. 

Medical  observations  upon  the  disease  in  mo- 
dern times  have  been  made  in  the  island  of  Gua- 
daloupe,  where  it  broke  out  about  the  middle  of 
the  last  century,  and  was  very  carefully  investi- 
gated by  M.  Peyssonel,  a  physician  sent  out  by 
the  French  government  for  the  purpose.  An  ac- 
count of  the  result  of  his  examination,  as  well  as 
of  other  investigations  of  English,  French,  and 
German  physicians  in  other  islands  of  the  West 
Indies  whither  it  had  been  imported  from  Africa, 
and  in  other  parts  of  the  world  is  given  by  Mi- 
chaelis  (Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  208,  210).  Also  of 
especial  importance  is  a  "  Report  on  the  leprosy 
in  Norway  by  Dr.  Danielssen,  chief  physician  of 
the  leper  hospital  at  Bergen,  and  Prof.  Boeck  " 
(Paris,  18-48).  The  subject  of  late  years  has 
considerably  interested  physicians,  and  the  Lon- 
don "  College  of  physicians  "  have  published  a 
report  upon  it,  based  upon  a  series  of  questions 
addressed  to  nearly  all  parts  of  the  world  where 
the  disease  now  prevails.  Many  other  authori- 
ties are  cited  by  Clark  in  his  preliminary  note 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  LAWS  CONCERNING  LEPROSY. 


101 


(o  these  chapters.  A  particularly  valuable  dis- 
cussion of  the  disease  may  be  fouud  in  Wilson, 
Diseases  of  the  skin,  ch.  xiii.  (5th  Am.  Ed.,  pp. 
300-314  and  333-381).  The  disease  appears  to 
have  been  more  or  less  common  in  Western  Eu- 
rope from  the  eighth  century  down,  but  received 
a  great  extension  at  the  time  of  the  crusades. 
At  one  time  a  partial  enumeration  by  Dugdale 
mentions  eighty-five  leper  bouses  in  England 
alone,  six  of  which  were  in  London,  and  it  con- 
tinued to  linger  in  Scotland  until  the  middle  of 
the  last  century.  It  still  exists  to  a  considerable 
extent  in  Iceland  and  Norway,  and  in  all  the 
countries  bordering  the  Eastern  shores  of  the 
Mediterranean,  especially  Syria  and  Egypt, 
where  it  has  found  a  home  in  all  ages,  in  some 
parts  of  Africa,  Arabia,  and  India. 

The  characteristics  of  the  disease  are  the  ex- 
ceedingly slight  symptoms  at  its  first  appear- 
ance :  its  insidious,  and  usually  very  slow  pro- 
gress, the  horribly  repulsive  features  of  its  later 
stages  when  the  face  becomes  shockingly  disfi- 
gured, and  often  the  separate  joints  of  the  body 
become  mortified  and  drop  off  one  by  one  ;  and 
its  usually  sudden  and  unexpected  termination 
at  the  last,  when  the  leprosy  reaches  some  vital 
organ,  and  gives  rise  to  secondary  disease,  often 
dysentery,  by  which  life  is  ended.  Meanwhile, 
during  the  earlier  stages,  generally  very  pro- 
longed, there  is  no  suffering,  and  the  ordinary 
enjoyments  of  life  are  uninterrupted. 

Leprosy,  with  these  characteristics,  especially 
its  hidden  origin,  and  its  insidious  and  resistless 
progress,  has  always  seemed  a  mysterious  dis- 
ease, and  among  the  heathen  as  well  as  among 
the  Jens,  has  been  looked  upon  as  an  infliction 
especially  coming  from  God.  In  fact  in  Hebrew 
history  it  was  so  often  employed  in  Divine  judg- 
ments, as  in  the  case  of  Miriam,  of  Gehazi,  and 
of  Uzziah,  and  was  also  so  often  healed  by  mi- 
raculous interposition,  as  in  the  case  of  Miriam 
also,  and  of  Naaman,  as  to  give  some  reason  for 
this  belief;  while  the  peculiar  treatment  it  re- 
ceived in  the  law  tended  still  further  to  place 
leprosy  in  a  position  of  alienation  from  the  theo- 
cratic state,  and  actually  included  the  leper  in 
that  "uncleanness  "  which  was  utterly  excluded 
from  approach  to  the  sanctuary.  The  disease 
thus  became  a  vivid  symbolism  of  sin,  and  of  the 
opposition  in  which  this  stands  to  the  holiness 
of  God  ;  while  at  the  same  time  its  revolting  as- 
pect in  its  later  stages  made  it  such  an  image, 
and  indeed  a  beginning,  of  death  itself  that  it  is 
often  most  appropriately  described  by  Jewish  as 
well  as  other  writers  as  "  a  living  death."  Much 
of  the  association  with  death  and  the  body  in 
the  corruption  of  death,  thus  attached  to  leprosy 
and  the  corruption  at  work  in  leprosy.  It  is  not 
necessary  here  to  speak  of  the  prevailing  He- 
brew notion  that  all  suffering  was  the  conse- 
quence of  individual  sin,  and  was  proportioned 
in  severity  to  the  degree  of  that  sin ;  for  how- 
ever deeply  seated  such  ideas  may  have  been  in 
the  minds  of  many  of  the  Israelites,  and  however 
much  they  may  have  increased  the  popular  dread 
and  abhorrence  of  leprosy,  they  find  no  shadow 
of  encouragement  whatever  in  the  law. 

In  regard  to  what  is  called  "leprosy"  in 
houses,  m  textile  fabrics,  and  in  leather,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  name  is  in- 


tended to  convey  the  idea  of  an  organic  disease 
in  these  inanimate  things.     The  law  will  still  be 
sufficiently  clear  if  we  look  upon  the  name  as 
merely  applied  in  these  cases  to  express  a  kind 
of  disintegration  or  corruption,  such  as  could  be 
most  readily  and  popularly  described,  from  cer- 
tain similarities  in  appearance,  by  the  figurative 
use  of  the  word.     In  the  same  way  the  terms  out 
of  joint,  sick,  and  others  have   come  among  our- 
selves to  be  popularly  used  of  inanimate  things, 
and  such  words  as  blistered,  bald,  and  rotten,  have 
a  technical  figurative  sense  almost  more  common 
than  their  original  literal  one.     These  modes  of 
disintegration  have  been  often  investigated  with 
great  learning  and  labor;  but  it  is  not  surprising 
that  at  this  distance  of  time,  and  after  such  pro- 
found changes  in  the  arts  and  the  habits  of  men, 
the  result  of  all  such  investigations  should  re- 
main   somewhat    unsatisfactory.     Just   enough 
has   been   ascertained  to  show  that  inanimate 
things,  of  the  classes   here  described,   are  sub- 
ject to  processes  of  decay  which  might  be  aptly 
described  by  the  word  leprosy ;  but  precisely 
what  the  processes  were  to  which  the   Levitical 
law  had  reference  it  is  probably  impossible  now 
to  ascertain   definitely.     The   most   satisfactory 
treatment  of  the  subject  from  this  point  of  view 
is   to   be  found    in    Michaelis    (ubi  supra.    Art. 
211).     He   instances    in   regard  to  houses,    the 
formation   of  saltpetre   or   other  nitrous   salts 
upon  the  walls  to  such   an  extent  in  some  parts 
of  Germany  as  to  become   an   article  of  com- 
mercial   importance,    and    to    be    periodically 
scraped  off  for  the  market.     By  others  the  exist- 
ence  of  iron  pyrites  in  the  dolomitic  limestone 
used  for  building  in  Palestine  has  been  suggested 
as  leading  in  its  decomposition  to  precisely  the 
appearances  described  in  the  law — hollow  streak3 
of  the  green  ferrous  sulphate  and  the  red  of  fer- 
ric sulphate — upon  the  walls  of  the  houses  af- 
fected;  but  proof  is  wanting  of  the  existence  in 
that  stone  of  pyrites  in  sufficient  abundance  to 
produce    the    effects   contemplated   in    the   law. 
Both  these  explanations,  however,  are  suggestive 
of  methods  of  disintegration  which  might  have 
occurred,  but  for  the  determination  of  which  we 
have  not  sufficient  data.     It  is  the  same  with  the 
explanation  of   Michaelis   in  regard  to  woolen 
fabrics, — that  the  wool  itself  is  affected  by  dis- 
eases of  the  sheep   upon  which  it   has  grown. 
The  fact  itself  does  not  seem  sufficiently  well  au- 
thenticated; nor  if  it  were,  would  it  be  applica- 
ble to  garments  of  linen.     Nevertheless,  this  is 
suggestive  of   defects  in  the  materials, — which 
were  in  all  cases  of  organic  production — arising 
either  from  diseased  growth,  or  from  unskilful- 
ness  in  the  art  of  their  preparation,  which  would 
after  a  time  manifest  themselves  in  the  product, 
much  in  the  same  way  as  old  books  now  some- 
times   become  spotted    over  with   a    "leprosy" 
arising  from  an  insufficient  removal  of  the  chemi- 
cals employed  in  the  preparation  of  the   paper 
pulp. 

But  whatever  the  nature  and  origin  of  this  sort 
of  "leprosy,"  it  is  plainly  regarded  in  the  Levi- 
tical law  as  is  no  sense  contagious,  or  in  any  way 
calculated  to  produce  directly  injurious  effects 
upon  man.  It  is  provided  for  in  the  law,  it 
would  appear,  partly  on  the  general  ground  of 
the   inculcation  of  cleanliness,  and  partly  from 


102 


LEVITICUS. 


association  with  the  human  disease  to  which  it 
bore  an  external  resemblance,  and  to  which  the 
utmost  repugnance  was  to  be  encouraged.  Even 
the  likeness  aod  suggestion  of  leprosy  was  to  be 
held  unclean  in  the  homes  of  Israel. 

No  mention  has  thus  far  been  made  of  a  theory 
of  this  disease  adopted  by  many  physicians,  and 
which,  if  established,  might  really  assimilate  the 
leprosy  in  houses  and  garments  and  ekins  to  that 
in  the  human  body,  and  explain  the  origin  of  all 
alike  by  the  same  cause.  According  to  this 
theory,  the  disease  is  occasioned  by  vegetable 
spores,  which  find  a  suitable  nidus  for  their  de- 
velopment either  in  the  human  skin  or  in  the 
other  substances  mentioned.  If  this  theory 
should  be  accepted,  the  origin  and  effects  of  the 
disintegrating  agencies  would  be  the  same  in  all 
cases.  The  late  eminent  physician,  Dr.  J.  K. 
Mitchell,  in  his  work  upon  the  origin  of  mala- 
rious and  epidemic  fevers  (Five  Ussays,  pi  ?4), 
after  quoting  the  law  in  relation  to  leprosy, 
Bays  :  "  There  is  here  described  a  disease  whose 
cause  must  have  been  of  organic  growth,  capable 
of  living  in  the  human  being,  and  of  creating 
there  a  foul  and  painful  disease  of  contagious 
character,  while  it  could  also  live  and  reproduce 
itself  in  garments  of  wool,  linen,  or  skin;  nay 
more,  it  could  attach  itself  to  the  walls  of  a 
house,  and  there  also  effect  its  own  reproduction. 
Animalcules,  always  capable  of  choice,  would 
scarcely  be  found  so  transferable ;  and  we  are 
therefore  justified  in  supposing  that  green  or  red 
fungi  so  often  seen  in  epidemic  periods,  were  the 
protean  disease  of  man,  and  his  garment,  and 
his  house."  He  further  quotes  from  Hecker 
statements  corroboratory  of  his  views  in  regard 
to  the  plagues  of  786  and  959.  This  theory,  how- 
ever, has  not  here  been  urged,  partly  because  it 
yet  needs  further  proof,  partly  because  no  theory 
at  all  is  necessary  to  account  for  the  Levitical 
legislation  in  view  of  the  facts  presented  in  the 
law. 

For  the  literature  of  the  subject,  besides  the 
reference  above  given,  see  the  art.  by  Hayman, 
Leper,  Leprosy,  in  Smith's  Bibl.  Diet.,  and  the 
Preliminary  note  on  these  chapters  in  Clark's 
Com.  on  Lev.,  together  with  the  appended  notes 
to  the  same. 

At  the  opening  of  his  "Exegetical"  Lange 
has  the  following,  which  may  be  appropriately 
placed  here :  "  First  of  all,  it  must  be  made  pro- 
minent that  the  leprosy,  under  the  point  of  view 
taken,  and  the  sentence  of  uncleanness,  is  placed 
as  a  companion  to  the  uncleanness  of  birth,  as 
the  representative  of  all  ways  of  death,  of  all 
sicknesses.  It  is  unclean  first  in  itself,  as  a  death 
element  in  the  stream  of  life — in  the  blood — -even 
as  the  source  of  life  appears  disturbed  in  the  re- 
lations of  birth  ;  but  still  more  it  is  unclean  as 
a  sickness  spreading  by  transmission  and  con- 
tagion. 

"Hence  it  appears  also  as  a  polluting  element 
of  physical  corruption,  not  only  in  men,  but  also 
through  the  analogy  of  an  evil  diffusing  iteelf,  in 
human  garments  and  dwellings.  The  analogous 
evils  of  these  were,  on  this  account,  called  lep- 
rosy. 

"  In  this  extension  over  man  and  his  whole 
sphere  it  is,  in  its  characteristics,  a  speaking 
picture  of  sin  and  of  evil  the  punishment  of  sin  ; 


it  is,  so  to  speak,  the  plastic  manifestation,  the 
medical  phantom  or  representation  of  all  the 
misery  of  sin. 

"  Accordingly  the  leprosy,  and  the  contact 
with  it,  is  the  specific  uncleanness  which  ex- 
cluded the  bearer  of  it  from  the  theocratic  com- 
munity, so  that  he,  as  the  typically  excommuni- 
cated person,  must  dwell  without  the  camp. 

"  Nothing  is  here  said  of  the  application  of 
human  means  of  healing  in  reference  to  this  evil. 
The  leper  was  left  with  his  sickness  to  the  mercy 
of  God  and  to  the  wonderfully  deep  antithesis  of 
recovery  and  death  ;  the  more  so,  since  leprosy 
in  a  peculiar  sense  is  a  chronic  crisis,  a  progres- 
sive disease,  continually  secreting  matter,  whe- 
ther for  life  or  for  death.  Mention  is  made  of 
external  counteraction  only  in  regard  to  leprosy 
in  garments  and  houses.  Hence,  from  its  na- 
ture, it  is  altogether  placed  under  the  supervi- 
sion of  the  priest.  The  priest  knew  the  charac- 
teristics of  the  leprosy,  and  the  course  of  its 
crises;  he  had  accordingly  to  decide  upon  the 
exclusion  and  upon  the  restoration  of  the  sick, 
and  to  express  the  latter  by  the  performance  of 
the  sacrifice  of  purification  brought  for  this  pur- 
pose by  the  convalescent. 

"Thus  in  conformity  to  the  spirit  of  Oriental 
antiquity,  the  priest  here  appears  as  the  physi- 
cian also  for  bodily  sicknesses,  as  a  watchman 
over  the  public  health.  But  for  the  cosmic  evils 
he  was  still  less  a  match  than  for  those  of  the 
body;  against  such  the  prophet  must  reveal  mi- 
raculous helps,  e.  g.,  against  the  bitterness  of 
the  water,  and  against  the  bite  of  the  fiery  ser- 
pents. 

"  The  great  contrast  between  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testaments  is  made  prominent  in  the  fact, 
that  in  the  Old  Testament  the  touch  of  the  leper 
made  unclean, — apparently  even  leprous: — while 
Christ  by  His  touch  of  the  lepers  cleansed  them 
from  their  leprosy.  But  it  continued  to  be  left 
to  the  priest,  as  the  representative  of  the  old  co- 
venant, to  pronounce  the  fact.  See  Comm.  S. 
Matt,,  p.  150." 

"The  name  Leprosy,  Al'^¥  is  derived  from 
Hyi  to  strike  down,  to  strike  to  the  ground;  the 
leprosy  is  the  stroke  of  God.  Gesenius  distin- 
guishes the  leprosy  in  men,  the  leprosy  in  houses 
(probably  the  injury  done  by  saltpetre),  and  the 
leprosy  in  garments  (mould,  mildew).  On  this 
chronic  form  of  sickness,  fully  equal  to  the  acute 
form  of  the  plague,  comp.  the  article  Leprosy 
(Aussatz)  in  the  dictionaries,  especially  in  Her- 
zog's  Eeal-encyclopiidie,  and  in  Winer.  Four 
principal  forms  are  distinguished,  of  which  three 
are  particularly  described  by  Winer:  1)  The 
white  leprosy,  Barras,  Xsvn>).  "  This  prevailed 
among  the  Hebrews  (2  Kings  v.  27,  etc.)  and  has 
hence  been  called  by  physicians  lepra  Mosaica. 
See  the  description  in  Winer,  I.  p.  114.  2)  The 
Elephantiasis,  lepra  nodosa,  or  tuberculosa,  tuber- 
cular leprosy,  Egyptian  boil,  thus  endemic  in 
Egypt.  "  The  sickness  of  Job  was  commonly 
considered  in  antiquity  to  have  been  this  kind 
of  leprosy."  3)  The  black  leprosy  or  the  dark 
Barras.  Later  medical  researches  (to  which  the 
articles  in  Bertheau's  Conversations-lexicon,  and 
Schenkel's  Bibel-lexicon  refer)  show  the  differ- 
ences between  the  various  kinds  as  less  defined; 


CHAP.  XIII.  1— XIV.  57.  103 


the  contagious  character  is  called  in  question  by 
Furrer  (in  Schenkel).  In  this  matter  indeed,  it 
is  a  question  whether  the  rigid  isolation  of  the 


leprous  has  not  hindered,  in  a  great  degree,  the 
examples  of  contagion."  For  a  catalogue  of 
the  literature,  see  Knobel,  p.  469  and  beyond. 


A.— EXAMINATION  AND  ITS  RESULT. 
Chapter  XIII.  1-46. 


1,  2  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  and  Aaron,  saying,  When  a  man  shall  have 
in  the  skin  of  his  flesh  a  rising,  a  scab,  or  bright  spot,  and  it  be  in  the  skin  of  the 
flesh  like  the  plague  [a  spot1]  of  leprosy  ;  then  he  shall  be  brought  unto  Aaron  the 

3  priest,  or  unto  one  of  his  sous  the  priests :  and  the  priest  shall  look  on  the  plague 
[spnt1]  in  the  skin  of  the  flesh :  and  ichen  the  hair  in  the  plague  [spot1]  is  turned3 
•white,  and  the  plague  [spot1]  in  sight  be  deeper  than  the  skin2  of  his  flesh,  it  is  a 
plague  [spot1]  of  leprosy :  aud  the  priest  shall  look  on  him,  and  pronounce  him 

4  unclean.  If  the  bright  spot  be  white  in  the  skin  of  his  flesh,  and  in  sight  be  not 
deeper  than  the  skin,  and  the  hair  thereof  be  not  turned'  white ;  then  the  priest 

5  shall  shut  up  him  that  hath  the  plague  [shall  bind  up  the  spot*]  seven  days :  and 
the  priest  shall  look  on  him  the  seventh  day :  and,  behold,  if  the  plague  [spot1]  in 
his  sight  be  at  a  stay,  and  the  plague  [spot1]  spread  not  in  the  skin ;  then   the 

6  priest  shall  shut  him  up  [shall  bind  it  up4]  seven  days  more:  and  the  priest  shall 
look  on  him  again  the  seventh  day :  aud,  behold,  if  the  plague  be  somewhat  dark 
[spot1  be  somewhat  faint5],  and6  the  plague  [spot1]  spread  not  in  the  skin,  the  priest 
shall  pronounce  him  clean  :  it  is  but  a  scab :  and  he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  be 

7  clean.     But  if  the  scab  spread  much  abroad  in  the  skin,  after  that  he  hath  been 

8  seen  of  the  priest  for  his  cleansing,  he  shall  be  seen  of  the  priest  again  :  and  if  the 
priest  see  that,  behold,  the  scab  spreadeth  in  the  skin,  then  the  priest  shall  pro- 
nounce him  unclean  :  it  is  a  leprosy. 

9  When'  the  plague  [spot1]  of  leprosy  is  in  a  man,  then  he  shall  be  brought  unto 
10  the  priest ;  and  the  priest  shall  see  him :  and,  behold,  if  the  rising  be  white  in  the 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

Note. — A  free  translation  of  tbis  chapter  in  terms  of  modern  medical  science  may  be  fourd  in  Wilson,  p.  377. 

1  Ver.  2.    T*J J,  a  word  of  very  frequent  occurrence  in  these  two  chapters  where  it  is  uniformly  translated  in  the  A.  V. 

(except  xiii.  42,  43,  sore)  plague,  as  it  is  also  in  Gen.  xii.  17 ;  Ex.xi.l;  T>eut.  xxiv.  S  (in  reference  also  to  Ieprnsyt;  1  Kings 
\i:i.  37,  33;  PS.  xci  10.    Elsewhere  the  renderings  of  the  A.  V.  are  very  various:  sore,  stroke,  -  By  far  th% 

most  comni'  n  rendering  in  the  LXX.  U  aCjri=tartus,  ictus.  The  idea  of  the  word  is  a  stroke  or  blotr,  aud  then  tb  i  t  I  of 
this  in  a  wound  or  spot  Clark  therefore  would  translate  here  stroke,  which  meets  well  enough  the  meaning  "f  the  word 
bul  does  uot  in  all  cases  convey  the  sense  in  English.  It  is  perhaps  impossible  to  find  one  word  in  English  whi  li 
ran  be  used  in  all  cases;  but  that  which  seems  hist  adapted  to  Leviticus  is  the  one  given  by  Horsley  and  Lee,  aud  adopted 
here:  spot.    So  Keil,  Wilson  and  others.     There  is  no  article  in  the  Heb. 

2  Ver.  3.  The  sense  is  here  undoubtedly  (he  tear/  ddn  (Clarl  .  the  cuticle,  in  contradistinction  to  the  cutis,  the  true  skin 
below.  So  Wilson,  who  says:  "This  distinction  in  realitv  conetitut  s  one  of  the  most  important  points  of  diu^nnsis  between 
real  leprosy  and  affections  of  the  skin  otherwise  resembling  leprosy."  But  as  we  have  in  Heb.  only  the  one  word  -)17/  for 
both  (except  the  air.  Aey.  "17J,  Job  xvi.  15),  there  does  not  seem  to  be  warrant  for  changing  the  translation,  especially  ae 

in  English  shin  answers  to  either  with  the  same  indefiniteness. 

3  Ver.  4.  The  coustructiou  in  vers.  3,  4  and  10  is  without  a  preposition  ;  in  vers.  16  and  17  it  is  with  the  preposition 

7,  as  is  expressed  in  the  A.  V. 

*  Vers.  4,  o,  etc.  According  to  Rosenmtlller  and  Gesenins,  y})  is  used  by  metonymy  for  the  person  upon  whom  it  is. 

This  view  is  adopted  by  Langn.  It  apneara  in  the  Targ.  of  Onk.  and  in  the  Vulg.,  and  has  been  followed  by  the  A.  V.  F.ir 
better  is  the  rendering  of  the  Sam.,  LXX.  and  Syr. :  the  priest  shall  bind  up  the  spot,  or  sore.  This  is  the  exact  translation  of 
the  II- l»,  and  is  advocated  by  Horsley,  Boothroyd,  and  many  others.  Fuerst  does  not  recognize  the  sense  by  metonymy. 
'lb  ■  sain' change  should  perhaps  also  be  mado  in  ver.  12.  See  Exegesis.  In  the  case  of  shutting  up  the  leprous  house 
(xiv.  3S)  the  word  house  is  distinctly  expressed  in  the  Heb. 

6  Ver.  6.  nn2=di'm.  pale,  faint,  weak,  dying.    The  idea  is  that  of  something  in  the  process  of  fading  away,  disappear- 

T  '* 

ing.     LXX.  inavpa.,  Vulg.  ohseurinr. 

6  Ver.  6.  It  does  not  appear  why  the  conjunction  in  the  A.  V.  should  be  printed  in  italics;  it  is,  however  wanting  in 
18  MSS.,  the  Sam.,  aud  LXX. 

7  Ver.  9.  The  conjunction  is  wanting  in  the  Heb.,  but  is  supplied  in  th»  Sam.  and  versions. 

8  Vers.  10  and  24.  H'TTD,  according  to  Rosenmueller  and  Fueret  an  indication,  aud  this  is  the  sense  given  in  Targ., 
Ouk.  and  the  Syr.,  and  apparently  also  in  the  Vulg.    The  LXX.  renders  ana  rob  vyiovt  ttjs  oapubs  rijs  c"wot)s  e»  r;;  ouAjj, 


104  LEVITICUS. 


skin,  and  it  have  turned3  the  hair  white,  and  there  be  quick  [a  mark  of8]  raw  flesh 

11  in  the  rising ;  it  is  an  old  leprosy  in  the  skin  of  his  flesh,  and  the  priest  shall  pro- 
nounce him  unclean,  and  shall  not  shut  him  up  [bind  it  up4]  :  for  he  is  unclean. 

12  And  if  a  leprosy  break  out  abroad  in  the  skin,  and  the  leprosy  cover  all  the 
skin  of  him  that  hath  the  plague  [spot1]  from  his  head  even  to  his  foot,  wheresoever 

13  the  priest  looketh ;  then  the  priest  shall  consider :  and,  behold,  if  the  leprosy  have 
covered  all  his  flesh,  he  shall  pronounce  him  clean  that  hath  the  plague  [pronounce 

14  the  spot1  clean4]  :  it  [he9]  is  all  turned  white:  he  is  clean.     But  when  raw  flesh 

15  appeareth  in  him,  he  shall  be  unclean.     And  the  priest  shall  see  the  raw  flesh,  and 

16  pronounce  him  to  be  unclean  :  for  the  raw  flesh  is  unclean  :  it  is  a  leprosy.  Or  if 
the  raw  flesh  turn  [change10]  again,  and  be  changed  [be  turned10]  unto  white,  he 

17  shall  come  unto  the  priest ;  and  the  priest  shall  see  him  :  and,  behold,  if  the  plague 
[spot1]  be  turned  into  [unto11]  white ;  then  the  priest  shall  pronounce  him  clean 
thai  hath  the  plague  [pronounce  the  spot1  clean4]  :  he  is  clean. 

18  The  flesh  also,  in  which,12  even  in  the  skin  thereof,  was  a  boil,14  and  is  healed, 

19  and  in  the  place  of  the  boil14  there  be  a  white  rising,  or  a  bright  spot,  white,  and 

20  somewhat  reddish  [and  glistening13],  and  it  be  shewed  to  the  priest ;  and  if,  when 
the  priest  seeth  it,  behold,  it  be  in  sight  lower  than  the  skin,  and  the  hair  thereof 
be  turned  white ;  the  priest  shall  pronounce  him  unclean :  it  is  a  plague  [spot1]  of 

21  leprosy  broken  out  of  the  boil.14  But  if  the  priest  look  on  it,  and,  behold,  there  be 
no  white  hairs  therein,  and  if  it  be  not  lower  than  the  skin,  but  be  somewhat  dark 

22  [faint5]  ;  then  the  priest  shall  shut  him  up  [shall  bind  it  up4]  seven  clays :  and  if 
it  spread  much  abroad  in  the  skin,  then  the  priest  shall  pronounce  him  unclean : 

23  it  is  a  plague  [spot1].  But  if  the  bright  spot  stay  in  his  place,  and  spread  not,  it 
is  a  burning  boil  [a  scar  of  the  boil15] ;  and  the  priest  shall  pronounce  him  clean. 

24  Or  if  there  be  any  flesh,  in  the  skin  whereof  there  is  a  hot  burning  [a  burn  by 
fire16],  and  the  quick  flesh  that  burneth  [the  mark  of  the  burn8]  have  a  white  bright 

25  spot,  somewhat  reddish  [glistening13],  or  white:  then  the  priest  shall  look  upon  it: 
and,  behold,  if  the  hair  in  the  bright  spot  be  turned  white,  and  it  Be  in  sight  deeper 
than  the  skin  ;  it  is  a  leprosy  broken  out  of  the  burning :  wherefore  the  priest  shall 

26  pronounce  him  unclean :  it  is  the  plague  [spot1]  of  leprosy.  But  if  the  priest  look 
on  it,  and,  behold,  there  be  no  white  hair  in  the  bright  spot,  and  it  be  no  lower  than 
the  other  [omit  other']  skin,  but  be  somewhat  dark  [faint5] ;  then  the  priest  shall 

27  shut  him  up  [shall  bind  it  up4]  seven  days :  and  the  priest  shall  look  upon  him 
the  seventh  day;  and  if  it  be  spread  much  abroad  in  the  skin,  then  the  priest  shall 

28  pronounce  him  unclean:  it  is  the  plague  [spot1]  of  leprosy.  And  if  the  bright  spot 
stay  in  his  place,  and  spread  not  in  the  skin,  but  it  be  somewhat  dark  [faint5]  :  it 
is  a  rising  of  the  burning,  and  the  priest  shall  pronounce  him  clean :  for  it  is  an 
inflammation  [a  scar15]  of  the  burning. 

taking  the  3  as  a  preposition,  and  understanding  it,  as  the  Rabbins,  of  a  spot  of  proud  flesh  in  the  midst  of  the  cicatrice. 
The  margin  of  the  A.  V.  is  the  quickening  of  lining  flash;  scar  would  express  the  seDse,  but  this  is  appropriated  to  rmV, 

vers.  23,  28,  and  mark  gives  the  exact  rendering  of  the  Hebrew,  and  meets  the  requirements  of  the  context. 

0  Ver.  13.  The  pronoun  should  obviously  refer  to  the  man  rather  than  the  Bpot. 

1"  Ver.  16.  7|3nj-    This  being  the  Bame  verb  as  is  used  in  vers.  3,  4, 17,  in  the  same  sense,  the  rendering  should  cer- 
tainly he  the  same.    The  alteration  in  the  A.  V.  was  evidently  on  account  of  the  previous  translation  of  JIU?'  by  turn. 

It  is  better  to  put  the  new  word  there. 

11  Ver.  17.  The  preposition  is  the  same  as  in  the  previous  verse,  and  the  change  in  the  A.  V.  may  have  been  simply 
accidental. 

u  Ver.  18.  The  word  13  soemB  redundant,  and  is  wanting  in  4  MSS.  and  the  Sam. 

18  Ver.  19.  J10"10"1X.    The  reduplication  of  the  letters  in  Ileb.  always  intensifies  the  meaning  (see  Bochart,  27Mrae.Pt. 

II..  lib.  V.,  c.  vi..  Ed.  Rosen.  HX,  p.  612  ssl;  if  therefore  this  be  translated  red  at  all,  it  must  be  very  red,  which  would  be 
iii  Hot  willi  t>  •■  previous  isMfe.  This  obvious  inconsistency  has  led  the  ancient  versions  into  translations  represented 
by  Hi-  tmu  what  reddish  of  lie-  A.  V.,  and  frequently  to  rendering  the  previous  conjunction  nr.  But  as  there  is  I "junc- 
tion at  Ml  iii  the  lb  I...  it  Beems  belter  to  follow  the  suggestion  of  Pool,  Patrick  and  others,  and  understand  the  word  as 
meaning  eery  bright,  thining,  glistening.    Comp.  the  description  of  leprosy,  Ex.  iv.  6;  Num.  xii.  10;  2  Kings  v.  27. 

»  Vers.  1»  ibis).  211,  23.   rniy,  burning  ulcer,  would  perhaps  be  a  better,  becauso  a  more  gonoial  word;  but  boil  was 
probably  understood  with  snfflcient  latitude. 

IS  Vers.  23  and  28.   rnt7n   rO"lV,  71131371  Of,  Rosenmueller,  cirutrU  vlcvris.     So  all  tho  ancient  versions,  and  so 
I     •   :    -  v  T         T  :  •    - 

Gesenins.    So  also  Ooverdttle  and  Oranmer,  and  so  Uigsrs.    Fuerst,  howevor,  inflammation. 

i«  Ver.  24.  The  margin  of  the  A.  V.  is  better  than  the  text.    This  paragraph  (vers.  24-2S)  is  plainly  in  relation  to  lep- 
rosy developing  from  a  bum  on  the  skin.    So  Uesuu,  i'uerst,  Pool,  Patrick,  etc.    So  the  LXX.  and  Vulg. 


CHAP.  XIII.  1— XIV.  57.  105 


29,  30  If  a  man  or  -woman  have  a  plague  [spot1]  upon  the  head  or  the  beard  ;  then 
the  priest  shall  see  the  plague  [spot1]  :  and,  behold,  if  it  be  in  sight  deeper  than  the 
skin  ;  and  there  be  in  it  a  [omit  a]  yellow  thin  hair  ;  then  the  priest  shall  pronounce 

31  him  unclean :  it  is  a  dry  scall,  even  a  leprosy  upon  the  head  or  beard.  And  if  the 
priest  look  on  the  plague  [spot1]  of  the  scall,  and,  behold,  it  be  not  in  sight  deeper 
than  the  skin,  and  that  there  is  no  black"  hair  in  it ;  then  the  priest  shall  shut  up 
him  that  hath  the  plague  of  the  scall  [shall  bind  up4  the  spot1  of  the  scall]  seven 

32  days :  and  in  the  seventh  day  the  priest  shall  look  on  the  plague18  [spot] :  and,  be- 
hold, if  the  scall  spread  not,  and  there  be  in  it  no  yellow  hair,  and  the  scall  be  not  in 

33  sight  deeper  than  the  skin  ;  he  shall  be  shaven,  but  the  scall  shall  he  not  shave  ; 
and  the  priest  shall  shut  up  him  that  hath  the  scall  [shall  bind  up  the  scall'1]  seven 

34  days  more :  and  in  the  seventh  day  the  priest  shall  look  on  the  scall :  and,  behold, 
if  the  scall  be  not  spread  in  the  skin,  nor  be  in  sight  deeper  than  the  skin ;  then 
the  priest  shall  pronounce  him  clean :  and  he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  be  clean. 

35,  36  But  if  the  scall  spread  much  in  the  skin  after  his  cleansing ;  then  the  priest 
shall  look  on  him  :  and,  behold,  if  the  scall  be  spread  in  the  skin,  the  priest  shall 

37  not  seek  for  yellow  hair;  he  is  unclean.  But  if  the  scall  be  in  his  sight  at  a  stay 
and  that  there  is  black  hair  grown  up  therein ;  the  scall  is  healed,  he  is  clean :  and 
the  priest  shall  pronounce  him  clean. 

38  If  a  man  also  or  a  woman  have  in  the  skin  of  their  flesh  bright  spots,  even  white 

39  bright  spots  ;  then  the  priest  shall  look :  and,  behold,  if  the  bright  spots  in  the 
skin  of  their  flesh  be  darkish  [faint5]  white ;  it  is  a  freckled  spot13  that  groweth  in 
the  skin ;  he  is  clean. 

40  And  the  man  whose  hair  is  fallen  off  his  head,  he  is  bald  ;•  yet  is  he  clean. 

41  And  he  that  hath  his  hair  fallen  ofl'  from  the  part  of  his  head  toward  his  face,  he 

42  is  forehead  bald:  yet  is  he  clean.  And  if  there  be  in  the  bald  head,  or  bald  fore- 
head, a  white  reddish  sore  [glistening13  spot1]  ;  it  is  a  leprosy  sprung  up  in  his  bald 

43  head,  or  his  bald  forehead.  Then  the  priest  shall  look  upon  it :  and,  behold,  if 
the  rising  of  the  sore  [spot1]  be  white  reddish  [glistening13]  in  his  bald  head,  or  in 

44  his  bald  forehead,  as  the  leprosy  appeareth  in  the  skin  of  the  flesh  ;  he  is  a  leprous 
man,  he  is  unclean :  the  priest  shall  pronounce  him  utterly  unclean ;  his  plague 
[spot1]  is  in  his  head. 

45  And  the  leper  in  whom  the  plague  [spot1]  is,  his  clothes  shall  be  rent,  and  his 
head  bare,21  and  he  shall  put  a  covering  upon  his  upper  lip  [his  mouth22],  and  shall 

46  cry,  Unclean,  unclean.  All  the  days  wherein  the  plague  [spot1]  shall  be  in  him  he 
shall  be  defiled :  he  is  unclean :  he  shall  dwell  alone  [apart23]  ;  without  the  camp 
shall  his  habitation  be. 

B.— LEPROSY  IN  CLOTHING  AND  LEATHER. 
Chapter  XIII.  47-59. 

47  The  garment  also  that  the  plague  [spot1]  of  leprosy  is  in,  whether  it  be  a  woollen 

48  garment,  or  a  linen  garment ;  whether  it  be  in  the  warp,  or  woof;  of  linen,  or  of 

W  Ver.  31.  Tbe  meaning  of  ^f"\iy=black  is  established.    The  LXX.,  yellow,  can  therefore  only  be  considered  as  an 
emendation  of  the  text,  substituting  3715,  and  this  is  followed  by  Luther,  Knobel,  Keil,  Murphy  and  others;  it  is,  how- 

T 

ever,  sustained  by  no  other  ancient  version  nor  by  any  MS.,  and  tbe  change  in  the  LXX.  must  be  considered  as  simply  an 
effort  to  avoid  a  difficulty.    Keil  and  Clark  propose,  as  a  less  desirable  alternative,  the  omission  of  tbe  negative  particle. 
There  is,  however,  no  real  difficulty  in  the  text  as  it  stands.     See  Exegesis. 
18  Ver.  32.  The  Sam.  here  substitutes   pPJ,  scull,  for  ^'JJ,  «po(. 

10  Ver.  30.   p713,  a  word  an-  Ae'y.  according  to  Gesen.  a  harmless  eruption  of  a  whitish  color  which  appears  on  the 

dark  skiu  of  the  Arabs,  and  is  still  called  by  tbe  same  name. 

20  Ver.  40.  nip.  used  here  apparently  for  the  bacifc  of  the  head  in  contradistinction  to  n3X  (he  fron\  which  occurs 

only  here  (but  its  derivative,  j"in3J»  is  found  vers.  42  ti.s,  43  and  55).    n^pi  however,  is  elsewhere  baldness  in  general. 

Comp.  Dent.  xiv.  1. 

21  Ver.  45.  Comp.  Textual  Note  5  on  x.  6. 

22  Ver.  45.   D3t£'.     There  is  some  doubt  as  to  the  true  meaning.    It  is  translated  beard  in  the  A.  V.,  2  Sam.  xix.  24 

T  T 

(2R),  and  so  Fuerst  and  Gesenius  would  render  it  here,  guided  by  tbe  etymology.    All  the  ancient  versions,  hoM  v 

late  it  'ii  tie]  moui  l  or  lips,  and  a  word  etymologically  signifying  beard  (or  rather  tbe  sprouting  place  of  hair)  would  e.is.iy 

come  to  have  this  sense  in  use.    It  is  a  different  word  from  the  tpJ=oeard  of  ver.  29. 

23  Ver.  40.   T13.     The  alone  of  the  A.  V.  would  ordinarily  be  a  good  enough  translation,  but  is   liable  to  be  misuuder- 

T  T 

stood.    The  leper  was  simply  to  dwell  apart  from  the  clean  Israelites,  but  might  and  did  live  with  other  lepers. 

22 


106  LEVITICUS. 


49  \roollen  ;  whether  in  a  skin,  or  in  anything  made  of  shin  ;  and  if  the  plague  [spot1] 
be  greenish  or  reddish  [very  greeo  or  very  red-*]  in  the  garment,  or  in  the  skin, 
either  in  the  warp,  or  in  the  woof,  or  in  anything  of  skin  ;  it  is  a  plague  [spot1]  of 

50  leprosy,  and  shall  be  shewed  unto  the  priest :  and  the  priest  shall  look  upon  the 
plague,  and  shut  up  it  that  hath  the  plague  [spot,1  aud  bind  up*  the  spot1]   seven 

51  days :  and  he  shall  look  on  the  plague  [spot1]  on  the  seventh  day :  if  the  plague 
[spot1]  be  spread  in  the  garment,  either  in  the  warp,  or  in  the  woof,  or  in  a  skin, 
or  in  any  work  that  is  made  of  skin ;  the  plague  [spot1]  is  a  fretting  leprosy;  it  is 

52  unclean.  He  shall  therefore  burn  that  garment,  whether  warp  or  woof,  in  woollen 
or  in  linen,  or  anything  of  skin,  wherein  the  plague  [spot1]  is:  for  it  is  a  fretting 

53  leprosy ;  it  shall  be  burnt  in  the  fire.  And  if  the  priest  shall  look,  and,  behold, 
the  plague  [spot1]  be  not  spread  in  the  garment,  either  in  the  warp,  or  in  the  woof, 

54  or  in  anything  of  skin;  then  the  priest  shall  command  that  they  wash  the  thing 

55  wherein  the  plague  [spot1]  is,  and  he  shall  shut  [bind1]  it  up  seven  days  more:  and 
the  priest  shall  look  on  the  plague  [spot1],  after  that  it  is  washed :  and,  behold,  if 
the  plague  [spot1]  have  not  changed  his  color,  and  the  plague  [spot1]  be  not  spread ; 
it  is  unclean ;  thou  shalt  burn  it  in  the  fire ;  it  is  fret  inward,  whether  it  be  bare 

56  within  or  without.25  And  if  the  priest  look,  and,  behold,  the  plague  be  somewhat 
dark  [the  spot1  be  somewhat  faint5]  after  the  washing  of  it ;  then  he  shall  reud  it 

57  out  of  the  garment,  or  out  of  the  skin,  or  out  of  the  warp,  or  out  of  the  woof:  and. 
if  it  appear  still  in  the  garment,  either  in  the  warp,  or  in  the  woof,  or  in  anything 
of  skin  ;  it  is  a  spreading  plague  [omit  a  and  plague']  ;  thou  shalt  burn  that  wherein 

58  the  plague  [spot1]  is,  with  fire.  And  the  garment,  either  warp,  or  woof,  or  what- 
soever thing  of  skin  it  be,  which  thou  shalt  wash,  if  the  plague  [spot1]  be  departed 
from  them,  then  it  shall  be  washed  the  second  time,  and  shall  be  clean. 

59  This  is  the  law  of  the  plague  [spot1]  of  leprosy  in  a  garment  of  woollen  or  linen, 
either  in  the  warp,  or  woof,  or  anything  of  skins,  to  pronounce  it  clean,  or  to  pro- 
nounce it  unclean. 

C— CLEANSING  AND  RESTORATION   OF  A  LEPER. 
Chapter  XIV.  1-32. 

1,  2    And  the  Lord  spake  unto   Moses,  saying,   This  shall   be   the   law   of  the 

3  leper  in  the  day  of  his  cleansing:  He  shall  be  brought  unto  the  priest:  and 
the  priest  shall  go  forth  out  of  the  camp;  and  the  priest  shall  look,  and,  behold,  if 

4  the  plague  [spot1]  of  leprosy  be  healed  in  the  leper;  then  shall  the  priest  command 
to  take26  for  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  two  birds2'  alive  and  clean,  and  cedar  wood 

5  and  scarlet,  and  hyssop :  and  the  priest  shall  command  that  one  of  the  birds   be 

6  killed  in  an  earthen  vessel  over  running  [living28]  water :  as  for29  the  living  bird, 
he  shall  take  it,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  dip 
them  and  the  living  bird  in  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed  over  the  running 

7  [living28]  water:  and  he  shall  sprinkle  upon  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from  the 
leprosy  seven  times,  and  shall  pronounce  him  clean,  and  shall  let  the  living  bird 

8  loose  into  the  open  fields.  And  he  that  is  to  be  cleansed  shall  wash  his  clothes, 
and  shave  off  all  his  hair,  and  wash  [bathe30]  himself  in  water,  that  he  may  be 

**  Ver.  49.   p^pV-    The  reduplication  of  the  letters  intensifies  the  meaning.    Comp.  note  '»  on  ver.  19.    rra"131N, 

too,  as  noted  above,  may  here  mean  either  very  red,  or,  as  before,  glistening.  There  is  so  little  knowledge  about  the  fact 
that  neither  of  them  can  be  certainly  decided  upon ;  but  as  in  this  case  we  have  the  disjunctive  (as  also  in  xiv.  37),  it  seems 
more  probable  that  two  distinct  colors  were  intended. 

25  A'er.  55.  The  margin  of  the  A.  V.  gives  the  literal  rendering  of  the  Heb.  bald  in  the  head  thereof,  or  in  till  forehead 
there'/,  andSthere  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  are  terms  figuratively  applied  to  the  cloth  or  skin  for  the  right  and  wrong 
Bide,  as  in  the  text. 

'-«  Chap.  XIV.  Ver.  4.  The  Sam.,  LXX.  and  Syr.  here  read  the  verb  in  the  plural,  expressing  the  fulfillment  of  the 
command. 

27  Ver.  4.  The  margin  of  the  A.  V.  reads  ttparroxes,  for  which  there  Beems  to  be  no  other  authority  than  the  Vulg.  The 
Heb.  does  not  define  the  kind  of  bird  at  all. 

28  Ver.  5.  Better,  living  water,  which  is  the  exact  rendering  of  the  Heb.  Ordinarily  living  water  is  a  figure  for  running 
■water;  but  here  the  water  is  contained  in  a  vessel,  aud  had  therefore  simply  been  filled  from  a  spring  or  ruuuing  stream. 

29  Ver.  C.  FIX-    The  conjunction  which  seems  to  be  needed  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse  is  supplied  in  the  Sam.  and 

6  MSS.     There  is  nothing  in  Heb.  answering  to  the  at  for  of  the  A.  V. 

*>  Ver.  8.   I'nl  is  applied  only  to  the  washing  of' the  surface  of  objects  which  water  will  not  penetrate.    Comp.  i.  9, 

13  ;  ix.  14,  etc.    It  is  a  different  word  from  0 22  of  the  previous  clauBe,  which  is  used  of  a  more  thorough  washing  or  full- 


CHAP.  XIII.  1— XIV.  57.  107 


clean  :  and  after  that  he  shall  come  into  the  camp,  and  shall  tarry  abroad  out  of 
his  tent  seven  days. 
9  But  it  shall  be  on  the  seventh  day,  that  he  shall  shave  all  his  hair  off  his  head 
and  his  beard  and  his  eyebrows,  even  all  his  hair  he  shall  shave  off:  and  he  shall 
wash  his  clothes,  also  he  shall  wash  [bathe50]  his  flesh  in  water,  and  he  shall  be 
clean. 

10  And  on  the  eighth  day  he  shall  take  two  he  lambs  [two  young  rams31]  without 
blemish,  and  one  ewe  lamb  of  the  first  year  without  blemish,  and  three  tenth  deals 
of  fine  flour  for  a  meat  offering  [an  oblation32],  mingled  with  oil,  and  one  log  of  oil. 

11  And  the  priest  that  maketh  him  clean  shall  present  the  man  that  is  to  be  made 
clean,  and  those  things,  before  the  Lord,  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 

12  gregation :  and  the  priest  shall  take  one  he  lamb  [ram31],  and  offer  him  for  a  tres- 
pass offering,  and  the  log  of  oil,  and  wave  them  for  a  wave  offering  before  the  Lord  : 

13  and  he33  shall  slay  the  lamb  [ram31]  in  the  place  where  he33  shall  kill  the  sin  offer- 
ing and  the  burnt  offering,  in  the  holy  place :  for  as  the  sin  offering  is  the  priest's, 

14  go  is**  the  trespass  offering:  it  is  most  holy:  and  the  priest  shall  take  some  of  the 
blood  of  the  trespass  offering,  and  the  priest  shall  put  it  upon  the  tip  of  the  right 
car  of  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed,  and  upon  the  thumb  of  his  right  hand,  and  upon 

15  the  great  toe  of  his  right  foot:  and  the  priest  shall  take  some  of  the  log  of  oil,  and 
10  pour  it  into  the  palm  of  his  own  left  hand  :  and  the  priest  shall  dip  his  right  finger 

in  the  oil  that  is  in  his  left  hand,  and  shall  sprinkle  of  the  oil  with  his  finger  seven 

17  times  before  the  Lord  :  and  of  the  rest  of  the  oil  that  is  in  his  hand  shall  the  priest 
put  upon  the  tip  of  the  right  ear  of  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed,  and  upon  the  thumb 
of  his  right  hand,  and  upon  the  great  toe  of  his  right  foot,  upon  the  blood15  of  the 

18  trespass  offering:  and  the  remnant  of36  the  oil  that  is  in  the  priest's  hand  he  shall 
pour  [put37]  upon  the  head  of  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed:  and  the  priest  shall  make 

19  an  atonement  for  him  before  the  Lord.  And  the  priest  shall  offer  the  sin  offering, 
and  make  an  atonement  for  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from  his  uncleauness ;  and 

20  afterward  he  shall  kill  the  burnt  offering:  and  the  priest  shall  offer  the  burnt 
offering  and  the  meat  offering  [oblation3-]  upon  the  altar  :38  and  the  priest  shall 
make  an  atonement  for  him,  and  he  shall  be  clean. 

21  And  if  he  be  poor,  and  cannot  get  so  much  :  then  he  shall  take  one  lamb  [ram31] 
for  a  trespass  offering  to  be  waved,  to  make  an  atonement  for  him,  and  one  tenth 

22  deal  of  fine  flour  mingled  with  oil  for  a  meat  offering,  and  a  log  of  oil ;  and  two 
turtle  doves,  or  two  young  pigeons,  such  as  he  is  able  to  get ;  and  the  one  shall  be 

23  a  sin  offering,  and  the  other  a  burnt  offering.  And  he  shall  bring  them  on  the 
eighth  day  for  [of39]  his  cleansing  unto  the  priest,  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle 

24  of  the  congregation,  before  the  Lord.  And  the  priest  shall  take  the  lamb  [ram31] 
of  the  trespass  offering,  and  the  log  of  oil,  and  the  priest  shall  wave  them  for  a 

25  wave  offering  before  the  Lord  :  and  he  shall  kill  the  lamb  [ram31]  of  the  trespass 
offering,  and  the  priest  shall  take  some  of  the  blood  of  the  trespass  offering,  and 
put  it  upon  the  tip  of  the  right  ear  of  him  that  is  to   be  cleansed,  and  upon  the 

ing.    The  English  is  unable  in  all  cases  to  preserve  the  distinction  ;  but  it  should  be  done  as  far  as  possible,  and  VTll  is 
frequently  translated  bathe  in  the  following  chapter  (xv.  5,  6,  7,  8, 10, 11, 13, 18,  21,  22,  27)  and  elsewhere. 

31  Ver.  10.    D'D'33~',3lV.     See  Textual  Note  6  on  iii.  7.    The  age  is  not  exactly  specified  in  the  Heb.;  bat   the  Sam. 

■  t  :      ■■  : 
and  LXX.  add  of  the  first  year,  as  in  the  following  clause. 

32  Ver.  10.  See  Textual  Note  "-  on  ii.  1. 

33  Yer.  12.  The  Sam.  and  LXX.  have  the  plural.  Probably  the  sing,  of  the  Heb.  is  not  intended  to  have  the  prieBt  for 
its  nominative,  but  to  be  impersonal. 

34  Ver.  13.  One  MS.,  the  Sam  ,  LXX.  and  Yulg.  supply  the  particle  of  comparison,  3. 

85  Ver.  17.  Two  MSS.,  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  here  read,  as  the  Heb.  in  ver.  28,  upon  the  place  of  the  blood. 

86  Ver  18.  For  j^u'3  three  MSS.  and  the  Syr.  read  T*Dt^n~TO,  as  in  ver.  16.  On  this  use  of  3,  however,  see  Fuerst, 
Lex.  "3,  3,  o.  V-    Gesen.  Lex.  A.  2. 

37  Ver.  18.  jrY  is  better  translated  put,  both  as  more  agreeable  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  itself,  and  because  the  oil 
remaining  in  the  left  hand  could  hardly  suffice  for  pouring. 

38  Ver.  20.  The  Sam.  and  LXX.  add  before  the  Lord. 

39  Ver.  23.  The  preposition  is  here  so  liable  to  be  misunderstood  that  it  is  better  to  change  it.  It  has  reference  to  the 
eighth  day  appointed  for  his  cleansing  (as  the  Vulg.),  not  to  the  sacrifices  for  his  cleansing  (as  the  LXX).  So  Geddes  and 
Boothroyd.    In  ver.  10  the  difficulty  does  not  occur. 


108  LEVITICUS. 


26  thumb  of  his  right  hand,  and  upon  the  great  toe  of  his  right  foot :  and  the  priest 

27  shall  pour  of  the  oil  into  the  palm  of  his  own10  left  hand :  and  the  priest  shall 
sprinkle  with  his  right  finger  some  of  the  oil  that  is  in  his  left  hand  seven  times 

28  before  the  Lord:  and  the  priest  shall  put  of  the  oil  that  is  in  his  hand  upon  the 
tip  of  the  right  ear  of  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed,  and  upon  the  thumb  of  his  right 
hand,  and  upon  the  great  toe  of  his  right  foot,  upon  the  place  of  the  blood  of  the 

29  trespass  offering :  and  the  rest  of41  the  oil  that  is  in  the  priest's  hand  he  shall  put 
upon  the  head  of  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed,  to  make  an  atonement  for  him  before 

30  the  Lord.     And  he  shall  offer  the  one  of  the  turtle  doves,  or  of  the  young  pigeons, 

31  such  as  he  can  get ;  even  such  as  he  is  able  to  get,  the  one  for  a  sin  offering,  and 
the  other  for  a  burnt  offering,  with  the  meat  offering :  and  the  priest  shall  make 
an  atonement  for  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  before  the  Lord. 

32  This  is  the  law  of  him  in  whom  is  the  plague  [spot1]  of  leprosy,  whose  hand  is 
not  able  to  get  that  ivhich  pertaineth  to  his  cleansing. 

D.— LEPROSY  IN  A  HOUSE. 
Chapter  XIV.  33-53. 

33,  34  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  and  unto  Aaron,  saying,  "When  ye  be  come 
into  the  land  of  Canaan,  which  I  give  to  you  for  a  possession,  and  I  put  the  plague 

35  [spot1]  of  leprosy  in  a  house  of  the  land  of  your  possession ;  and  he  that  owneth 
the  house  shall  come  and  tell  the  priest,  saying,  It  seemeth  to  me  there  is  as  it  were 

36  a  plague  [spot1]  in  the  house  :  then  the  priest  shall  command  that  they  empty  the 
house,  before  the  priest  go  into  it  to  see  the  plague  [spot1],  that  all  that  is  in  the 
house  be  not  made  unclean :  and  afterward  the  priest  shall  go  in  to  see  the  house  : 

37  and  he  shall  look  on  the  plague  [spot1],  and,  behold,  if  the  plague  [spot1]  be  in  the 
walls  of  the  house  with  hollow  strakes,42  greenish  or  reddish  [very  green  or  very 

38  red43],  which  in  sight  are  lower  than  the  wall ;  then  the  priest  shall  go  out  of  the 

39  house  to  the  door  of  the  house,  and  shut  up  the  house  seven  days :  and  the  priest 
shall  come  again  the  seventh  day,  and  shall  look  :  and,  behold,  if  the  plague  [spot1] 

40  be  spread  in  the  walls  of  the  house ;  then  the  priest  shall  command  that  they  take 
away  the  stones  in  which  the  plague  [spot1]  is,  and  they  shall  cast  them  into  an 

41  unclean  place  without  the  city :  and  he44  shall  cause  the  house  to  be  scraped  within 
round  about,  and  they  shall  pour  out  the  dust  that  they  scrape  off  without  the  city 

42  into  an  unclean  place :  and  they  shall  take  other  stones,  and  put  them  in  the  place 
of  those  stones ;  and  he44  shall  take  other  mortar,  and  shall  plaister  the  house. 

43  And  if  the  plague  [spot1]  come  again,  and  break  out  in  the  house,  after  that  he44 
hath  taken  away  the  stones,  and  after  he  hath  scraped  the  house,  and  after  it  is 

44  plaistered  ;  then  the  priest  shall  come  and  look,  and,  behold,  if  the  plague  [spot1] 

45  be  spread  in  the  house,  it  is  a  fretting  leprosy  in  the  house:  it  is  unclean.  And 
he44  shall  break  down  the  house,  the  stones  of  it,  and  the  timber  thereof,  and  all 
the  mortar  of  the  house ;  and  he44  shall  cany  them  forth  out  of  the  city  into  an 

46  unclean  place.     Moreover  he  that  goeth  into  the  house  all  the  while  that  it  is  shut 

47  up  shall  be  unclean  until  the  even.  And  he  that  lieth  in  the  house  shall  wash  his 
clothes ;  and  he  that  eateth  in  the  house  shall  wash  his  clothes.45 

48  And  if  the  priest  shall  come  in,  and  look  upon  it,  and,  behold,  the  plague  [spot1] 
hath  not  spread  in  the  house,  after  the  house  was  plaistered  :  then  the  priest  shall 

49  pronounce  the  house  clean,  because  the  plague  [spot1]  is  healed.     And  he  shall  take 

50  to  cleanse  the  house  two  birds,  and  cedar  wood,  and  scarlet,  and  hyssop :  and  he 

*>  Ver.  26.  |n3n  ^"bt*,  an  expression  understood  by  Houbigant  to  mean  tbat  one  priest  should  pour  into  the 
hand  of  another;  the  sense  given  in  the  A.  V.  following  the  Vulg.  is,  however,  doubtless  correct. 

*l  Ver.  29.  The  Sam.  here  reverses  its  change  of  reading  in  ver.  IS,  and  has  3  for  TO. 

«  Ver.  36.  n'H'TJ'ptf,  a  word  air.  Aey.,  but  its  meaning  sufficiently  well  ascertained.  The  A.  V.  foUows  the  LXX., 
Chald.  and  Vulg.,  and  the  same  sense  is  given  by  Roseum.,  Fuerst  and  Gcsen,  though  by  each  with  a  different  etymology. 

«  Ver.  37.  See  Notes  "  on  xiii.  10,  and  «  on  ver.  49. 

*  Ver.  41.  All  the  ancient  versions  except  the  Vulg.  chance  (be  causative  form  of  the  verb  to  the  plural,  as  the  follow- 
ing verb  is  plural.     Alrfu  in  vers.  4"Z,  ■!:;,  45,  'f.',  they  baVO  the  plural. 

4*  Ver.  47.  Tho  LXX.  here  ad'N,  what  is  of  course  implied,  and  he  unclean  until  the  even. 


CHAP.  XIII.  1— XIV.  57. 


109 


51  shall  kill  the  one  of  the  birds  in  an  earthen  vessel  over  running  water:  and  he  shall 
take  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  hyssop,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  living  bird,  and  dip 
them  in  the  blood  of  the  slain  bird,  and46  in  the  running  [living28]  water,  and  sprin- 

52  kle  the  house  seven  times:  and  he  shall  cleanse  the  house  with  the  blood  of  the  bird, 
and  with  the  running  [living28]  water,  and  with  the  living  bird,  and  with  the  cedar 

53  wood,  and  with  the  hyssop,  and  with  the  scarlet :  but  he  shall  let  go  the  living  bird 
out  of  the  city  into  the  open  fields,  and  make  an  atonement  for  the  house :  and  it 
shall  be  clean. 

E.  —  CONCLUSION. 
Chap.  XIV.  54-57. 

54,  55     This  is  the  law  for  all  manner  of  plague  [spot1]  of  leprosy,  and  scall,  and  for 

56  the  leprosy  of  a  garment,  and  of  a  house,  and  for  a  rising,  and  for  a  scab,  and  for  a 

57  bright  spot:  to  teach  when  it  is  unclean,  and  when  it  U  clean:  this  is  the  law  of 
leprosy. 

w  Ver.  51.  The  LXX.  has  dip  tittm  in  tlie  blood  of  the  bird  that  has  been  killed  over  the  living  water,  and  thia  is  doubtless 
the  sense-  of  the  text. 


EXEGETICAL   AND    CRITICAL. 

A.  The  Examination  and  its  result. 

The  indications  of  the  disease.  Vers.  1-8. 

Ver.  1.  This  communication  is  addressed  to 
Moses  and  Aaron  conjointly  because  it  requires 
examinations  and  determinations  entrusted  to  the 
priests. 

Vers.  2-8.  The  first  case,  of  symptoms  like  lep- 
rosy. Ver.  2.  Man  is  of  course  used  generically 
for  a  person  of  either  sex.  No  stress  is  to  be 
laid  upon  the  fact  that  the  expression  skin  of 
his  flesh  is  found  only  in  this  chapter  ;  for  the 
word  skin  occurs  here  nearly  as  often  as  in  all 
the  rest  of  the  Scripture  put  together,  and  very 
similar  expressions  do  occur  elsewhere,  e.g.  Ex. 
xxxiv.  29,  30,  35,  "  the  skin  of  his  face,"  and 
the  skin  is  often  spoken  of  as  covering  the  flesh, 
e.  g.  Ezek.  xxxvii.  6,  8,  etc. — A  rising,  a  scab, 
or  a  bright  spot,  are  different  indications  of 
incipient  leprosy;  the  disease  itself  was  more 
deeply  seated,  but  it  betrayed  itself,  as  it  does 
still,  by  these  marks.  The  last  two  terms  are 
only  used  in  connection  with  this  disease,  and 
the  first  is  only  elsewhere  used  figuratively  of 
dignity  or  excellency.  "  The  name  leprosy 
JTJHV  is  derived  from  yyS  =  to  strike  down,  to 
strike  to  the  ground:  the  leper  is  he  who  has  been 
smitten  by  God."  Lange.  For  the  examination 
of  the  leper  one  of  the  ordinary  priests  was  suf- 
ficient as  well  as  the  high-priest ;  the  Talmudists 
assert,  that  priests  debarred  by  physical  imper- 
fection from  ministering  at  the  altar  were  com- 
petent to  the  examination  of  lepers.  The  priests 
were  expected,  if  occasion  required,  to  consult 
with  experts,  but  the  formal  sentence  rested  with 
them  alone. 

Ver.  3.  These  marks,  however,  might  exist 
without  having  been  caused  by  leprosy.  Two 
distinguishing  characteristics  are  now  men- 
tioned, and  if  both  these  concurred,  there  could 
be  no  doubt  about  the  case — the  priest  was  at 
once  to  pronounce  him  unclean  ;  (a)  if  the 
hair  growing  upon  the  spot  had  turned  white. 
The  hair  of  the  Israelites  was  normally  black  ; 
if  it  had  turned  white  upon  the  spot  it  be- 
trayed a  cause  at  work  beneath  the  surface  of 


the  skin,  (b)  If  the  spot  was  in  appearance 
deeper  than  the  skin.  "  These  sigus  are  re- 
cognized by  modern  observers  (e.  g.  Hensler)  ; 
and  among  the  Arabs  leprosy  is  regarded  as  cu- 
rable if  the  hair  remains  black  upon  the  white 
spots,  but  incurable  if  it  becomes  whitish  in  co- 
lor." Keil.  Judgment  was  of  course  required  in 
the  application  of  the  second  test ;  but  if  the  in- 
dications were  clear,  the  case  was  decided,  and 
the  duty  of  the  priest  was  to  declare  the  exist- 
ing fact. 

Vers.  4-8.  The  determination  of  cases  in  which 
the  indications  are  not  decisive.  First,  vers.  4- 
6,  the  case  in  which  the  suspicion  of  leprosy 
should  prove  unfounded.  If  there  were  suspi- 
cious looking  spots,  but  yet  they  appeared  on 
examination  to  be  merely  superficial,  and  there 
was  no  change  in  the  color  of  the  hair  growing 
in  them,  either  of  two  things  might  be  possible  : 
the  spots  might  be  the  effect  of  true  leprosy  not 
yet  sufficiently  developed  to  give  decisive  indi- 
cations :  or  they  might  be  a  mere  eruption  upon 
the  skin,  of  no  importance.  To  ascertain  which 
of  these  was  the  fact,  the  priest  was  to  bind  up 
the  spot  seven  days. — -At  the  end  of  that  time 
a  second  examination  was  to  be  made;  if  then 
the  indications  were  favorable,  the  same  process 
was  to  be  repeated.  If  at  the  end  of  this  time 
the  indications  were  still  favorable,  and  espe- 
cially if  the  suspicious  spot  had  become  faint, 
tending  to  disappear,  the  priest  was  to  pro- 
nounce the  man  clean.  Yet  still  the  very  suspi- 
cion, unfounded  as  it  proved  to  be,  had  brought 
some  semblance  of  a  taint  upon  the  man,  and  he 
must  wash  his  clothes.  These  two  periods 
of  seven  days  each  are  usually  looked  upon  as 
periods  of  a  sort  of  quarantine,  during  which  the 
man  himself  was  to  be  secluded,  and  this  view 
has  been  incorporated  into  the  A.  V.  here  and 
throughout  these  chapters.  It  is  not,  however, 
required  by  the  Hebrew,  and  in  view  of  the  great 
hardship  it  would  impose  upon  those  who  were 
in  reality  entirely  free  from  the  disease,  it  seems 
more  likely  that  the  simple  rendering  of  the  He- 
brew gives  the  true  sense.  The  extreme  slow- 
ness with  which  leprosy  is  oftentimes  developed 
has  been  considered  a  difficulty  in  the  way  of  a 
determination  in  reality,   in   so   short  a  time ; 


110 


LEVITICUS. 


however,  the  two  things  are  not  at  all  incompa- 
tible. A  fortnight  was  quite  long  enough  to  de- 
termine the  character  of  any  ordinary  eruption; 
if  it  was  none  of  these,  and  yet  possessed  the 
characteristics  of  leprosy,  then  it  must  be  de- 
cided to  be  leprosy,  although  months  or  years 
might  pass  before  the  disease  showed  much  fur- 
ther progress.  Vers.  7,  8,  however,  show  that 
even  the  leprous  spots  themselves  did  not  re- 
main quite  unchanged  during  this  time.  On  the 
second  examination  the  priest  could  ascertain  if 
the  spots  had  begun  to  spread.  If  not,  the  dis- 
ease, although  it  might  possibly  already  exist, 
was  not  pronounced;  but  if  they  had  spread,  all 
doubt  was  at  an  end ;  the  priest  shall  pro- 
nounce him  unclean.  Another  view  is  taken 
of  ver.  7.     Kosenmiiller  says  that  in  the  word 

'liTinoi  the  7  is  to  be  taken  for  postquam  as  in 

tt:  t  :  :  ■*      p  3 

Ex.   xix.   1 ;  Num.  i.    1 ;    1  Kings   iii.    18 ;  this 

sense  is  followed  in  the  Vulg.  and  Luther,  and 
adopted  by  Vatablus,  Patrick,  and  other  com- 
mentators. According  to  this  the  law  would  re- 
late to  the  breaking  out  of  the  leprosy  afresh  at 
gome  time  after  he  had  been  pronounced  clean 
by  the  priest.  The  translation  of  the  A.  V., 
however,  which  is  here  followed,  seems  more  ex- 
actly the  sense  of  the  Hebrew. 

Vers.  9—11.  The  second  case  is  one  in  which 
ulceration  has  already  begun.  Either  it  is  a 
long-standing  case  in  which  the  command  for 
inspection  has  been  neglected,  or  else  one  in 
which  sentence  of  cleanness  has  been  pronounced 
on  insufficient  grounds.  With  the  appearauce 
of  a  mark  of  raw  flesh  in  the  rising,  in  com- 
bination with  the  other  indications,  all  doubt 
was  removed  ;  it  must  be  an  old  leprosy,  and 
the  priest  shall  at  once  pronounce  him  un- 
clean. 

Vers.  12-17.  The  third  case  is  looked  upon  ac- 
cording to  differing  medical  views,  either  as  a 
different  disease,  the  lepra  vulgaris,  which 
"scarcely  affects  the  general  health,  and  for  the 
most  part  disappears  of  itself,  though  it  often 
lasts  for  years"  (Clark);  or  as  a  case  of  the  true 
leprosy  in  which  "  the  breaking  out  of  the  lep- 
rous matter  in  this  complete  and  rapid  way  upon 
the  surface  of  the  whole  body  was  the  crisis  of 
the  disease  ;  the  diseased  matter  turned  into  a 
scurf,  which  died  away  and  then  fell  off"  (Keil). 
Patrick  compares  it  to  the  eruptious  in  measles 
and  small  pox,  when  there  is  safety  in  their  full 
development.  The  suspected  person  thus  either 
had  a  harmless  disease,  or  he  had  had  the  leprosy 
and  was  cured.  In  either  case  sentence  of  clean- 
ness was  to  be  pronounced.  But  (vers.  14,  15) 
if  ulceration  appeared  (it  would  seem  either  at 
the  moment  or  afterwards)  he  was  at  once  to  be 
declared  unclean.  This  ulceration,  however, 
might  proceed  from  some  other  cause  ;  therefore, 
although  the  man  must  be  declared  unclean  in 
view  of  so  suspicious  an  indication,  yet  if  it  af- 
terwards passed  away,  the  sentence  might  be 
reversed,  and  the  man  pronounced  clean  without 
further  investigation. 

Vers.  18-23.  The  fourth  case  is  that  of  a  sus- 
pected leprosy  arising  from  an  abscess  or  boil 
which  had  been  healed.  Such  disturbed  condi- 
tions of  the  surface  were  peculiarly  apt  to  be- 
come the  seat  of  disease.     The  indications  are 


much  the  same  as  in  the  other  cases,  the  terms 
first  mentioned  here  being  equally  applicable  to 
the  others.  Reliance  is  again  placed  (ver.  20) 
upon  the  depth  of  the  spot  and  the  change  in  the 
color  of  the  hair.  If  these  indications  were  clear, 
as  in  ver.  3,  the  priest  should  at  once  pronounce 
the  man  unclean  ;  if  they  were  doubtful,  he  was 
to  proceed  as  in  ver.  4,  and  be  guided  by  the  re- 
sult of  a  second  examination  at  the  end  of  seven 
days.  In  such  a  case  a  single  interval  of  a  week 
appears  to  have  been  sufficient,  and  no  further 
examination  is  provided  for.  After  one  week  it 
could  be  certainly  determined  whether  it  was 
merely  the  scar  of  the  ulcer,  or  whether  leprosy 
had  really  broken  out  in  it. 

Vers.  24-28.  The  fifth  case  is  that  of  suspected 
leprosy  developing  from  a  burn,  another  of  those 
injuries  favorable  for  the  development  of  the 
disease.  The  indications  and  the  procedure  are 
precisely  the  same  as  before.  In  ver.  2G  the  A. 
V.  has  inserted  the  word  other  unfortunately. 

Vers.  29-37.  The  case  of  leprosy  suspected  in 
an  eruption  upon  the  hairy  part  of  the  head,  or 
upon  the  beard.  Although  this  is  spoken  ex- 
pressly in  regard  to  both  men  and  women,  yet 
the  indications  are  so  dependent  upon  hair  that 
it  is  not  proper  to  substitute  here  chin  for  beard, 
as  is  done  by  Keil.  The  word  used  Jpl  is  a  dif- 
ferent one  from  the  D3ty  of  ver.   45,  which  is 

T  T 

often  translated  beard;  the  Ancient  Versions, 
however,  give  beard  here,  and  either  mouth  or  lips 
there.  Pliny  (Xat.  Hist.  lib.  xxvi.  1)  speaks  of 
such  a  disease  imported  into  Italy  from  Asia  in 
the  reign  of  Tiberius,  neither  painful  nor  fatal, 
"yet  any  death  preferable  to  it."  In  ver.  30 
the  A.  V.  has  unnecessarily  modified  the  symp- 
toms by  inserting  the  indefinite  article  before 
yellow  thin  hair.  The  word  Tj'i'  is  collec- 
tive, as  in  ver.  3,  and  freq.  In  this  form  of  the 
disease  the  natural  hair  seems  to  have  been  sup- 
planted by  thin,  yellow  (2TYS=golden,  shining) 
hair.  This  is  declared  to  be  p;"U,  translated  in 
the  A.  V.  dry  scall,  and  immediately  explained 
as  a  leprosy  upon  the  head  or  beard.  The 
word  occurs  only  in  these  chapters.  The  indi- 
cations given  in  vers.  29,  30,  were  not  absolutely 
decisive.  It  would  seem  from  ver.  31,  that  in 
the  coming  on  of  true  leprosy  the  effect  upon  the 
hair  was  only  gradually  produced,  part  of  the 
hair  remaining  for  a  time  of  its  natural  color; 
while  in  the  case  of  other  harmless  cutaneous 
eruptions,  of  more  rapid  progress,  all  the  hair 
on  the  affected  spot  was  speedily  changed.  Hence 
the  entire  absence  of  black  hair  at  the  first  was 
a  favorable  symptom.  In  this  view  the  text  is 
consistent  enough  with  itself  as  it  stands,  and 
Keil  is  wrong  in  saying  "  there  is  certainly  an 
error  in  the  text."  In  case  of  this  favorable 
symptom  the  priest  should  bind  up  the  spot  for 
two  periods  of  a  week,  making  a  further  exami- 
nation at  the  end  of  each  of  them.  The  favo- 
rable indications  were  that  the  spot  did  not 
Bpread,  did  not  appear  to  be  deep-seated,  and  the 
yellow  hair  disappeared.  If  this  was  the  case 
at  the  end  of  the  first  period,  the  person  was  to 
be  shaven  with  the  exception  of  the  spot,  and  at 
the  end  of  the  second  pronounced  clean,  and  to 
wash  his  clothes. — If,  however,  (vers.  35,  3ii) 


CHAP.  XIII.  1— XIV.  57 


111 


the  trouble  afterwards  spread,  the  person  was  to 
be  again  examined  by  the  priest,  and  being  sa- 
tisfied of  this  single  fact,  the  priest  must  pro- 
nounce him  unclean.  Yet  if  this  spreading  was 
only  temporary,  he  might  finally  be  pronounced 
clean  (ver.  37)  provided  the  natural  hair  grew 
again  in  the  spot. 

Vers.  38,  39.  This  is  the  case  of  a  harmless 
eruption  in  the  skin  termed  pH2,  LXX.  a?.ci6c. 
It  is  still  known  among  the  Arabs  and  called  by 
the  same  name,  bohak,  "  It  is  an  eruption  upon 
the  skin,  appearing  in  somewhat  elevated  spots 
or  rings  of  unequal  sizes  and  a  pale  white  color, 
which  do  not  change  the  hair;  it  causes  no  in- 
convenience, and  lasts  from  two  months  to  two 
years."  Keil.  It  is  placed  here,  because  it 
might  be,  without  proper  examination,  mistaken 
for  leprosy,  and  its  appearance  was  probably 
most  nearly  assimilated  to  the  symptoms  last 
mentioned.  The  sufferer  by  it  was  at  once  dis- 
charged as  clean,  without  further  ceremony. 

Vers.  40-44.  The  baldness  of  the  head,  whether 
on  the  front  or  back,  constitutes  no  uncleanness ; 
yet  leprosy  might  be  developed  in  the  bald  parts, 
and  then  was  to  be  dealt  with  as  in  other  cases. 
The  reason  for  speaking  of  baldness  at  all  in  this 
connection  is  probably  that  the  color  of  the  hair 
has  been  made  of  so  much  importance  in  deter- 
mining the  symptoms  of  leprosy,  that  the  legis- 
lator would  cut  off  all  opportunity  for  cavil  in 
suspected  cases. 

Vers.  45,  46.  The  law  for  the  pronounced 
leper.  The  leper  was  in  the  first  place  to  put  on 
the  signs  of  mourning  (comp.  Ezek.  xxiv.  17,  22), 
some  say  "for  himself  as  one  over  whom  death 
had  already  gained  the  victory  "  (Clark) ;  but  it 
may  have  been  merely  as  a  mark  of  great  afflic- 
tion, and  some  of  the  signs  were  also  signs  of 
shame  (comp.  Mic.  iii.  7).  And  shall  cry, 
Unclean,  unclean,  as  a  warning  to  any  passers 
by.  This  command  is  not,  as  sometimes  asserted, 
to  guard  against  the  danger  of  communicating 
the  disease;  but  rather  to  avoid  making  others 
ceremonially  unclean  by  contact  with  a  leper. 
The  Rabbins  carried  this  sort  of  defilement  so 
far  as  to  assert  that  "by  merely  entering  a 
house,  a  leper  polluted  everything  without  it." 
(Mishna,  Kelini  i.  4;  Negaim  xiii.  11,  as  cited  by 
Keil).  All  the  days.— The  law  constantly 
keeps  in  view  the  possibility  of  the  recovery  of 
the  leper;  but  it  is  uncertain  whether  this  indi- 
cates that  the  true  leprosy  was  then  less  incura- 
ble than  now,  or  whether  it  has  regard  to  the 
possibility  of  error  in  the  determination  of  the 
disease.  In  either  case,  while  the  symptoms 
continued  for  which  he  had  been  pronounced 
unclean,  and  until  by  the  same  authority  he  was 
again  formally  declared  clean  (xiv.  1-32),  he 
was  to  dwell  apart ;  without  the  camp. 
Comp.  Num.  v.  2-4;  xii.  14,  15;  2  Ki.  xv.  5; 
Lk.  xvii.  12.  The  Jews  say  that  there  were  three 
camps  from  all  of  which  the  leper  was  excluded: 
that  of  God  (the  tabernacle),  that  of  the  Levites, 
and  that  of  Israel.  After  the  settlement  in  the 
Holy  Land  the  camp  was  considered  in  this,  as 
in  other  commands,  to  be  represented  by  the 
walled  city.  Vet  af'er  the  erection  of  syna- 
gogues'lepers  were  allowed  to  enter  a  particular 
part  of  them  set  apart  for  their  use,  (Mishna 
ubi  supra). 


B.    Leprosy    in    clothing    and    Leather,    xiii. 
47-59. 

Only  three   materials   for   clothing   are   here 
mentioned:    wool,   linen,   and   skins.     The   two 
former  were  the  usual  materials  among  the  an- 
cient Egyptians  and  Greeks,  and  only  these  are 
mentioned  Deut.  xxii.  11;   Prov.  xxxi.  13;   Hos. 
ii.  9.     It   is   a   dispute   among   the    Talmudisls 
whether  garments  of  camel's  hair  are  included 
or  not.     Woolen  and  linen  were  forbidden  by  the 
law  (six.  19)  to  be  mixed  in  the  same  garment. 
On   the   nature   of   the  leprosy   here  described, 
see    the    preliminary     note     to     this    chapter. 
Ver.  48.    Whether    it    be   in  the   warp    or 
woof  has    occasioned   much    unnecessary  per- 
plexity on   account  of  the  supposed  difficulty  iu 
one  of  these  remaining  uuaffected  in  the  cloth 
by  any  disintegration   occurring  in   the   other; 
and  Keil  would  translate  "  the  flax  and  the  wool;" 
Clark,  De  Wette,  Knobel  and  others,  (with  whom 
Keil  also  seems    to  concur)   explain  it  of  yarn 
prepared  for   warp    and  yam  prepared  for  woof. 
There  is  really  however,  no  difficulty  in  the  mat- 
ter, if  the  trouble  is  supposed  to  arise  from  some 
original  fault  in  the  material  or  in  the  processes 
of  its  preparation.   Whichever  was  made  of  such 
material  would  first  show  the  defect,  and  it  could 
be  seen  in  the  cloth  that  the  trouble  arose  from 
either  the  warp  or  the  woof,  as  the  case  might 
be.     The   same  sort  of  thing  is   sometimes  ob- 
served in  cloth  now  when  the  proper  proportion 
has  not  been  observed  between  the  strength  of 
the  two  kinds  of  thread,  so   that  the  cloth  will 
tear  with  undue  ease  in  one  direction  but  not  in 
the  other;  or  when,  in  cloth  woven  of  different 
colors,  one  set  of  threads  has  been  injured  in  the 
dyeing.     A  distinction  is  made  between  a  skin 
and  any  thing  made  of  skin.     The  former 
were  whole  skins,  as  sheep  skins  dressed  with 
the  wool  on  for  a  sort  of  cloak  for  the  poor,  or 
for  mats,  etc.,  and    also  made   into   leather  for 
bottles   and  other  uses;  the  latter  the  endless 
variety  of  smaller  articles  made  of  leather.    Ver. 
49.  A  strong  green  or  red  spot  was  prima  facie 
evidence  of  leprosy,  and  subjected  that  in  which 
it  appeared  to  priestly  examination.     According 
to   Maimonides  (cited  by  Patrick)  the  spot  must 
be    "as   broad  as  a  bean,"  and  if  smaller  than 
this  was  of  no  consequence.     Ver.  50.   Bind  up 
the  spot — Here  as  in  ver.  4,  etc.,  the  usual  in- 
terpretation is  that  of  the  A.  V.,  shut  up  it  that 
halh  the  spot;  but  the  Hebrew  in  all  these  places 
only   means   necessarily  the   binding  up  of  the 
spot    itself,  not  a  sort   of  quarantine  upon  the 
person  or  thing  on  which  it  is.    See  Textual  note 
4.     In  this  case  there  is  not  the  same  hardship 
involved  in  the  other  rendering  as  in  the  case 
of  the  human  subject:  but  still  the  rendering  is 
objectionable  as  implying  much  more  strongly 
than   the  law  itself  the  idea  of  contagiousness. 
Vers.  51-58  describe  the  appearances  by  which 
the  priest  must  determine  whether  the  suspicious 
spots  were    really  leprosy  or  not.     These   turn 
upon  whether  the  spot  increased.     If  it  did,  then 
he  was  at  once  to  burn  that  garment.     The 
expresssion  in  vers.  52,  and  58,  whether  warp 
or  woof,  and   in  ver.  56  out  of  the  warp  or 
out  of  the  woof  is   to   be  understood   of  the 
cloth  in  which  the  disease  has  appeared  in  either 
the  warp  or  the  woof.     Fretting,   vers.  53,  52 


112 


LEVITICUS. 


(Bochart,  lepra  exasperata),  is  equivalent  to  cor- 
roding. If  however,  the  spot  had  not  increased 
at  the  examination  made  at  the  end  of  a  week, 
the  suspected  article  was  to  be  washed  and  the 
process  repeated.  If  at  the  end  of  another  week 
after  the  washiug  there  was  no  change  in  the 
color  of  the  spot,  the  thing  was  to  be  condemned 
and  burned,  although  there  was  no  apparent 
spreading.  In  such  case  it  is  fret  inward, 
i.  e.,  the  material  itself  was  faulty  and  unfit  for 
use.  Whether  it  be  bare  within  or  with- 
out;  lit.  bald  in  the  head  thereof,  or  in  the 
forehead  thereof,  (Margin  A.  V.  See  Texual 
note  20).  As  the  disease  itself  is  figuratively 
named  from  its  resemblance  to  the  human  lep- 
rosy, so  these  terms  are  used  in  the  same  way, 
and  are  generally  considered  to  mean  the  right 
or  the  wrong  side  of  the  cloth  or  skin.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  at  the  end  of  the  week  after  the 
washing  the  spot  had  become  less  distinct  (ver. 
56  |,  it  was  to  be  torn  out  of  the  garment  or  skin. 
If  it  reappeared  (ver.  57)  the  thing  was  to  be 
burned  ;  but  otherwise  (ver.  58)  to  be  washed  a 
second  time  and  then  pronounced  clean.  Ver. 
59  is  simply  the  usual  conclusion,  stating  that 
the  foregoing  is  the  law  for  the  cases  specified. 

C.  Cleansing  and  restoration  of  the  leper, 
xiv.  1-32. 

This  communication  was  addressed  to  Moses 
alone,  because  there  were  no  questions  to  be 
determined  by  priestly  examination;  it  simply 
directs  what  is  to  be  done  in  the  case  of  a  per- 
son already  pronounced  clean  by  the  priest. 
Vers.  1—20  prescribe  the  normal  course,  vers. 
21-31  allow  certain  modifications  for  the  poor, 
and  ver.  32  is  the  conclusion. 

A  new  Proper  Lesson  of  the  law  begins  here, 
and  extends  to  the  close  of  the  following  chap- 
ter; the  parallel  lesson  from  the  prophets  is 
2  Ki.  vii.  3-20,  containing  the  account  brought 
into  Samaria  by  the  four  lepers  of  the  flight  of 
the  besieging  army  of  the  Syrians. 

Lange :  "  a.  The  theocratico-political  atone- 
ment, or  the  taking  again  of  the  person  pro- 
nounced clean  into  the  camp,  i.  e.,  into  the  con- 
gregation of  the  people.  Hence  this  first  act 
of  atonement  took  place  without  the  camp  (later, 
before  the  gate  of  the  city).  The  leper  was  to 
be  represented  by  two  birds,  living  and  clean. 
They  must  be  wild  birds,  since  the  tame  turtle 
doves  or  the  young  pigeons  would  not  have  flown 
away  when  released.  Since  these  birds  repre- 
sent the  maximum  of  free  motion,  we  may  cer- 
tainly find  this  thought  indicated:  want  of  free 
motion  was  a  chief  cause  of  the  leprosy."  [This 
inference,  however,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  is 
only  an  inference,  not  a  part  of  the  law  which 
carefully  abstains  from  any  mention  of  the 
causes].  "One  of  these  birds  was  slain  over  a 
vessel  in  which  there  was  already  some  fresh 
spring  or  river  water.  It  is  not  to  be  understood 
that  in  this  the  purification  by  water  was  indi- 
cated together  with  the  atoning  blood,  since  the 
washing  follows  farther  on;  on  the  contrary,  in 
the  fresh  water  the  thought  of  living  motion  is 
again  brought  out.  The  blood  of  the  slain  bird 
dropped  into  this  water;  the  few  drops  of  blood, 
in  and  of  themselves,  would  not  suffice  for  the 
sprinkling.  Nevertheless  also,  the  blood  of  the 
slain  bird  considered  as  typically  sick,  through 


death  became  fresh  again  in  its  signification. 
The  living  bird,  which  was  to  remain  alive,  was 
dipped  in  the  augmented  blood  of  the  dead  bird. 
Cut  very  note-worthy  are  the  allegorical  accom- 
paniments which  jointly  serve  to  illustrate  the 
living  bird,  and  were  therefore  dipped  with  it  in 
the  blood;  a  piece  of  cedar  wood,  as  a  symbol 
of  the  endurance  of  life ;  a  piece  of  scarlet,  as  a 
symbol  of  the  freshness  of  life;  some  hyssop,  as  a 
symbol  of  the  purity  of  life  through  constant  puri- 
fications of  life."  (See  Keil,  p.  106,  [trans.,  p. 
385  «.]).  After  the  living  bird  with  these  accom- 
paniments had  been  dipped  in  the  blood,  the 
person  to  be  cleansed  was  sprinkled  seven  times 
with  this  blood.  No  further  mention  is  made  of 
the  dead  bird,  since  its  flesh  was  not  a  sacrifice ; 
but  the  living  bird,  hallowed  by  the  blood  of  the 
dead,  is  set  free.  We  may  rightly  see  in  the 
two  birds  the  double  position  of  the  leper  in  his 
leprosy:  in  the  slain  bird  he  appears  as  he  had 
fallen  into  death ;  in  the  one  that  is  set  free, 
on  the  contrary,  he  appears  as  by  God's  mercy 
he  is  recovered  to  unrestrained  motion.  But  we 
might  also  in  this  contrast  find  the  thought,  that 
the  leprosy,  as  it  falls  upon  one  part  of  the  com- 
munity, keeps  the  other  part  all  the  more  free; 
or,  that  health  and  disease  are  separated  as 
opposite  poles  in  regard  to  the  common  national 
life.  In  any  case,  it  is  a  fact  that,  in  regions 
where  Cretinism  prevails,  which  is  analogous  to 
leprosy,  the  freshest  and  strongest  forms  occur 
near  the  sick.  Meanwhile,  the  person  sprinkled 
with  the  blood  must  complete  this  purification  in 
several  ways:  first,  by  washing  his  clothes; 
secondly,  by  cutting  off  all  his  hair  from  his 
whole  body,  (whether  also  his  eyebrows  and 
eyelashes?);  thirdly,  by  bathing  himself.  Then 
he  might  go  into  the  camp,  but  must  yet  add 
seven  days  more  on  the  outside  of  his  tent. 
Why  ?  Keil  answers  with  the  Chaldee  et  non 
accedal  ad  latus  uxoris  suie.  But  the  law  would 
not  have  been  too  modest  to  say  so.  With  this 
id  to  be  noticed  that  this  same  direction  is 
applied  to  several  analogous  cases.  He  who  is 
healed  of  a  running  issue,  must  wait  seven  days 
after  the  recognition  of  his  healing  before  he  can 
bring  his  sacrifice  (xv.  13).  The  same  applies 
to  the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood  [ib.  2S).  So 
too,  for  the  Nazarite  in  whose  presence  a  man 
had  died  (Num.  vi.  10).  Particularly  weighty 
is  the  direction  of  the  seven  days'  waiting 
which,  according  to  viii.  35,  must  introduce  the 
final  consecration  of  the  priests.  We  cannot  say 
that  during  these  seven  days  the  priest  was  yet 
unclean ;  but  he  had  not  indeed  become  fully 
clean  for  the  service  of  the  priesthood.  When 
we  look  back  at  the  ordinance  of  the  second 
seven  days  in  reference  to  one  who  has  been 
recognized  as  clean — the  leprous  man,  or  gar- 
ment, or  house, — there  appears  a  distinction  of 
cleanness  of  a  first  and  second  grade,  a  negative 
and  a  positive  cleanness,  which  latter  was  a  kind 
of  priestly  consecration.  Every  Israelite,  in  his 
degree  should  have  this  priestly  consecration  ; 
but  espe»ially  near  to  it  stood  the  Nazarite,  and 
next  to  him  we  place  the  cleansed  leper.  In  the 
new  covenant,  the  highly  favored  sinner  st  nds 
higher  than  the  Christian  of  less  experience  of 
salvation;  the  son,  who  was  lost  and  found, 
higher  than  the  elder  brother;  Mary  Magdalene 


CHAP.  XIII.  1— XIV.  57. 


113 


nigher  than  a  common  maiden."  [It  must  be 
always  borne  in  miuil,  however,  that  this  supe- 
riority does  not  rest  upon  any  advantage  in 
having  sinned,  but  upon  the  earnestness  of  love 
on  the  part  of  him  who  has  been  forgiven.  See 
Lk.  vii.  47.  F.  G.].  "This  fact  appears  to  have 
been  typically  represented  in  the  Old  Testament 
by  the  restoration  of  the  cleansed  leper  to  the 
worship  of  the  congregation."  [It  was  repre- 
sented, that  is  to  say,  in  the  very  full  ceremonies 
and  sacrifices  accompanying  the  restoration,  but 
not  in  any  higher  position  of  the  cleansed  leper 
after  his  restoration  was  accomplished. — F.  G.]. 

"  6.  The  theocratico-religious  atonement.  The 
offering  obligatory  upon  the  leper  was  very  ex- 
tensive ;  two  he-lambs,  one  ewe-lamb,  three  tenth 
parts  of  wheaten  flour  mingled  with  oil,  and  a 
log  of  oil.  The  trespass  offering  formed  the  be- 
ginning of  the  offering,  for  the  leper  has  by  the 
connection  with  his  people  come  into  its  guilt." 
[Nevertheless,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  this  could 
have  been  the  reason,  when  the  leper  had  been 
absolutely  separated  from  his  people,  and  was 
now  to  be  restored  to  his  connection  with  them. 
But  see  under  ver.  12.— F.  G.].  "  The  blood  of 
this  trespass  offering  was  first  treated  like  the 
blood  of  the  trespass  offering  of  the  priest;  it 
was  put  on  the  tip  of  the  right  ear,  on  the  thumb 
of  the  right  hand,  and  on  the  thumb  or  great  toe 
of  the  right  foot,  all  with  the  same  meaning  as 
in  the  consecration  of  the  priests.  In  addition 
to  this,  the  oil  comes  into  use,  which  indeed,  as 
being  common  oil,  is  different  from  the  anointing 
oil  of  the  priests,  but  is  still  a  symbol  of  the 
spiritual  life.  With  this  oil  in  minute  measure, 
the  priest,  with  a  finger  of  his  right  hand  dipped 
in  the  oil  which  had  been  poured  into  the  hollow 
of  the  left,  executed  a  seven-fold  sprinkling  be- 
fore the  Lord,!,  e.,  towards  the  sanctuary.  Then, 
with  the  rest  of  the  oil,  the  three  parts  of  the 
body  were  anointed  which  had  been  smeared 
with  the  blood  of  the  trespass  offering.  The 
blood  baptism  preceded,  as  the  negative  conse- 
cration :  the  oil  baptism  must  follow,  as  the  po- 
sitive atonement.  The  head  of  the  leper  was 
also  anointed  with  the  oil.  He  was  thus  to  be 
Wade  a  man  of  the  Spirit  in  each  way,  by  his 
tribulation,  and  his  deliverance.  Then  followed 
the  sin  offering,  for  which,  in  accordance  with 
iv.  28,  32,  the  ewe-lamb  was  to  be  used.  In  this 
place  the  addition  is  made:  he  shall  make  an 
atonement  for  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed 
[xiv.  31].  Plainly  his  sin  is  assumed  in  this  to 
be  individual  guilt,  in  contradistinction  from  his 
share  in  the  common  guilt.  It  is  rightly  pre- 
supposed that  the  leprosy  in  each  one  stands  in 
connection  with  his  individual  sinfulness;  how- 
ever light,  it  has  for  its  result,  sins  of  ill-will, 
of  bitterness,  of  impatience,  of  self-forgetfulncss, 
of  prejudice  toward  the  community.  Now  firstcan 
the  presentation  of  the  burnt  offering  follow,  with 
the  other  he-lamb,  and  with  the  meat  offering." 

"  The  ordinance  may  be  modified  in  case  the 
person  to  be  purified  is  poor.  The  direction  for 
the  sacrifice  itself  is  indeed  almost  analogous  to 
the  direction  in  the  case  of  the  poor  woman  in 
child-birth;  only  here  the  lamb  for  the  trespass 
offering,  the  tenth  deal  of  wheaten  flour  sprin- 
kled with  oil  for  a  meat  offering,  and  the  log  of 
oil  for  anointing,  could  not  be  dispensed  with  by 


the  bringing  of  two  doves  or  young  pigeons. 
Moreover,  the  trespass  offering,  as  well  as  the 
oil,  is  directed  to  be  made  a  wave-offering  before 
Jehovah.  It  is  the  same  ritual  as  the  wave  or 
the  consecration  offering  at  the  consecratiou  of 
the  priests  (viii.  22,27).  Thus  this  waving  here 
also  can  only  signify  a  peculiar  consecration  of 
the  leper,  which  is  more  strongly  expressed  in 
the  case  of  the  poor  leper  who  must  be  shaken 
free  with  his  gift,  must  be  brought  to  a  swinging 
up.  or  heave  offering  (Aufschwung)." 

Some  points  in  the  above  will  be  found  differ- 
ently treated  below. 

Vers.  1-3.  The  starting  point  for  the  following 
directions  is  the  priestly  inspection  of  the  leper 
supposed  to  be  healed.  This  must  take  place 
without  the  camp,  and  if  it  resulted  favorably, 
then  the  following  directions  were  to  be  observed. 
(The  expression  JD  K3^J,  as  Keil  notes,  is  a 
"  const,  prsegnans,  healed  away  from,  i.  e.,  healed 
and  gone  away  from  "). 

Vers.  4-8.  The  restoration  to  the  camp.  This 
was  formally  accomplished  by  a  very  full  and 
significant  ritual,  proportioned  to  the  abhorrence 
in  which  leprosy  was  to  be  held,  and  the  rigid- 
ness  of  the  exclusion  of  the  leper  from  the  so- 
ciety of  his  people.  There  was  no  sacrifice,  since 
the  person  to  be  cleansed  was  not  yet  in  a  con- 
dition to  offer  sacrifice,  nor  was  anything  offered, 
or  even  brought  by  him,  nor  was  anything  placed 
upon  the  altar.  The  ceremony  was,  however,  a 
purification  which  is  always  related  to  sacrifice 
as  a  symbolic  step  towards  a  restoration  to  fel- 
lowship with  God. 

For  the  significance  of  the  things  used  in  this 
ceremony,  Abarbanel  is  quoted  by  Patrick  to  the 
following  effect:  the  living  birds  signify  t hat  the 
leper's  dead  flesh  was  restored  to  life  and  vigor  ; 
the  cedar  Kood  restoration  from  putrefaction  ;  the 
scarlet  (wool,  or  thread,  or  a  bit  of  cloth)  resto- 
ration of  the  color  of  health  to  the  complexion  ; 
the  h/ssop  (which  was  fragrant)  restoration  from 
the  exceedingly  ill  odor  of  the  disease. 

An  earthen  vessel  was  taken — probably 
that  after  this  use  it  might  be  broken  up  and  de- 
stroyed— and  partly  filled  with  water  from  a 
spring  or  brook,  and  one  of  the  birds  killed  over 
it  in  such  a  way  that  its  blood  should  fall  into 
and  be  mingled  with  the  water.  In  this  the 
living  bird  was  to  be  dipped  with  the  other 
things,  and  then  the  person  to  be  cleansed  was 
sprinkled  with  it  with  that  sevenfold  sprinkling 
prescribed  on  occasions  of  peculiar  solemnity 
(see  iv.  6)  ;  and  the  person  was  then  to  be  pro- 
nounced clean.  After  this  the  living  bird  was 
let  loose  into  the  open  field.  In  attempting 
to  estimate  the  significance  of  this  rite,  it  is  to 
be  remembered  that  precisely  the  same  ritual  is 
prescribed  for  the  cleansing  of  the  leprous  house 
(vers.  40-53),  and  the  cedar,  scarlet  and  hyssop, 
were  also  burned  with  the  red  heifer,  whose 
ashes,  placed  in  water,  were  to  be  used  for  pu- 
rifications (Num.  xix.  6).  The  water,  the  blood, 
the  cedar  and  the  scarlet  are  mentioned  in  the 
Ep.  to  the  Ileb.  (ix.  10,  20)  as  having  been  used 
by  Moses  iu  sprinkling  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
and  the  people  (see  Ex.  xxiv.  0-8),  and  generally 
hyssop  was  used  in  various  forms  of  sprinkling. 
Except  therefore  in  regard  to  the  birds,  I  o  sig- 
nificance can  be  attributed  to  these  things  which 


114 


LEVITICUS. 


is  not  common  to  other  purifications  besides 
those  of  the  leper,  and  even  in  regard  to  the 
birds,  none  which  is  not  common  to  the  cleansing 
of  the  leprous  man  and  the  leprous  house  (ver. 
53).  In  view  of  this,  and  of  the  analogy  of  the 
scapegoat  (xvi.  21,  22),  the  living  bird  let  loose 
must  be  considered  as  bearing  away  the  unclean- 
ness  of  the  leper  (Von  Gerlach),  and  not  as  sig- 
nifying the  social  resurrection  of  the  leper  in  his 
restoration  to  the  congregation.  Of  this  last, 
the  bird  flying  away  to  return  no  more  could 
hardly  have  been  a  symbol.  On  the  natural  his- 
tory of  the  cedar  (Juniperus  oxycedrus),  and  the 
hyssop,  see  Clarke.  The  scarlet  is  said  in  the 
Mishna  to  have  been  used  for  tying  the  other 
things  to  the  living  bird  when  they  were  dipped 
together  in  the  water  mingled  with  blood.  No- 
thing is  said  of  the  disposal  of  all  these  things 
after  they  had  fulfilled  their  purpose.  After  this 
ceremonial,  the  symbolical  cleansing  was  still 
further  set  forth  (ver.  8)  by  the  leper's  washing 
his  clothes,  and  shaving  off  all  his  hair,  and 
bathing  himself.  He  might  then  enter  the  camp, 
but  not  yet  his  own  tent.  This  remaining  re- 
striction seems  designed  to  still  further  impress 
upon  the  mind  the  fearful  character  of  the  dis- 
ease from  which  the  leper  had  recovered  :  and  still 
more,  to  postpone  the  full  restoration  of  the  leper 
to  his  family  until  he  had  first,  by  the  prescribed 
sacrifices,  been  restored  to  fellowship  with  God. 

Ver.  9.  After  an  interval  of  a  week,  the  re- 
stored person  was  to  be  again  shaved  com- 
pletely, to  again  wash  his  clothes,  and  again 
bathe  himself.  He  wa8  now  prepared  to  offer 
the  prescribed  sacrifices  on  the  following  day  ; 
for  he  was  now  clean. 

Vers.  10-20.  The  restoration  to  fellowship 
with  God,  and  admission  to  the  sanctuary.  Now 
for  the  first  time  the  cleansed  leper  brings  him- 
self the  things  necessary  for  the  completion  of 
his  cleansing.  Three  victims  are  to  be  offered  ; 
for  a  trespass,  for  a  sin,  and  for  a  burnt  offering. 
With  these  also  he  brought  the  prescribed  obla- 
tion and  the  oil  for  his  anointing;  the  oil  was  to 
be  waved  with  the  trespass  offering  (ver.  12)  as 
its  consecration  to  God,  and  the  whole  oblation 
(although  three  tenth  d.'als  seem  to  be  required 
with  reference  to  the  three  sacrifices)  was  to  be 
offered  upon  the  altar  with  the  burnt  offering 
(ver.  20).  The  flour  amounted  to  nearly  six 
quarts,  the  separate  oil  to  about  half  a  pint. 
Ver.  12.  Offer  him  for  a  trespass  offering. — 
The  offering  thus  designated  was  not  required 
to  be  of  a  definite  value,  as  in  the  ordinary  tres- 
pass offerings,  and  it  was  altogether  peculiar  in 
its  ritual,  bring  waved  with  the  oil  for  a  wave 
offering  before  the  Lord. — This  was  never 
done  with  any  part  of  the  ordinary  trespass  of- 
fering (v.  14-vi.  7) :  only  in  the  sacrifice  of  xxiii.  20 
was  the  whole  victim  ever  waved  ;  as  still  another 
peculiarity,  the  wave  offering  was  placed  in  this 
case,  not  in  the  hands  of  the  offerer,  but  in  those 
of  the  priest.  What,  then  was  here  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  waving?  Keil,  Clark,  and  others, 
consider  it  as  a  consecration  of  the  cleansed  le- 
per represented  by  the  victim.  It  is  true  that 
there  was,  in  tho  ritual  as  a  whole,  a  kind  of 
consecration  of  the  person  to  his  restored  posi- 
tion as  one  of  the  people  of  the  Lnnn  ;  but  this 
can  scarcely  have  been  the  meaning  of  this  par- 


ticular ceremony.  When  the  Levites  were  con- 
secrated to  the  service  of  the  Lord  by  a  wave 
offering,  they  were  themselves  waved  (Num.  viii. 
11 ;  Heb.  A.  V.  marg.) ;  when  the  priests  were 
consecrated,  the  wave  offering  was  placed  in 
their  hands,  and  consisted  of  certain  parts,  not 
of  a  trespass  offering,  but  of  their  "ram  of  con- 
secration "  (viii.  2-5-28) ;  when  portions  of  the 
ordinary  peace  offerings  were  consecrated  by 
waving,  they  were  always  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  offerer.  From  all  these  the  waving  of  the 
whole  ram  of  the  leper's  trespass  offering  essen- 
tially differs  ;  nor  does  it  seem  possible  that  it 
could  signify  his  consecration,  unless  it  were  in 
some  way  placed  in  his  own  hands.  More  pro- 
bably, this  part  of  the  ritual  was  simply  de- 
signed to  distinguish  the  leper's  from  the  ordi- 
nary trespass  offering  ;  that  while  it  was  still  to 
be  classed  generically  with  that  offering,  it  was 
yet  specifically  distinct  from  it.  A  consideration 
of  this  fact  will  remove,  partially  at  least,  the 
difficulty  of  understanding  why  a  trespass  offer- 
ing should  have  been  required  of  the  cleansed 
leper.  The  reason  given  by  Oehler  and  others, 
that  it  was  a  kind  of  fine,  or  satisfaction  ren- 
dered for  the  fact,  that  during  the  whole  period 
of  his  sickness,  in  consequence  of  his  exclusion 
from  the  camp,  the  leper  had  failed  to  per- 
form his  theocratic  duties,  is  shown  by  Keil 
to  be  entirely  untenable,  since  no  such  offer- 
ing was  required  in  parallel  cases  of  persons 
excluded  from  the  sanctuary  when  affected  with 
diseased  secretions;  to  this  it  may  be  added, 
that  no  penalty  was  required,  as  in  the  case  of 
trespass  offerings  for  such  offences.  Nor  is  the 
reason  above  given  by  Lange  quite  satisfactory. 
The  true  idea  in  this  offering  seems  to  be  that 
the  leper,  by  his  very  sickness,  had  been  in  the 
condition  of  an  offender  against  the  theocratic 
law  of  purity  ;  yet  that  this  was,  in  his  case,  not 
an  actual,  but  only  a  quasi  trespass,  is  shown  by 
the  omission  to  require  it  to  be  of  definite  value 
and  by  the  ritual  directing  it  to  be  made  also 
into  a  wave  offering.  The  leper  had  not  merely 
failed  to  present  his  required  offerings  in  conse- 
quence of  his  exclusion  from  the  camp,  but  he 
had  actually  lived  in  a  condition  of  extremest 
theocratic  uncleanness  (far  more  so  than  in 
the  case  of  the  secretions),  and  consequently  in 
symbolic  opposition  to  the  Head  of  the  theocracy. 
He  must  therefore  present  a  trespass  offering ; 
but  as  all  this  had  been  done  not  only  involun- 
tarily, but  most  unwillingly,  the  offering  was 
distinguished  by  being  waved.  Ver.  13.  For  as 
the  sin  offering  is  the  priest's,  so  is  the 
trespass  offering. — This,  already  known  as 
the  general  law  (vii.  7),  is  here  repeated,  be- 
cause otherwise  the  peculiarity  of  this  trespass 
offering  might  seem  to  make  it  an  exception. 
It  is  most  holy.    See  on  ii.  3. 

In  regard  to  the  order  of  the  various  offerings: 
here  the  sin  offering  (ver.  19)  precedes  the  burnt 
offering  according  to  the  general  rule;  but  the 
trespass  offering  comes  before  them  both.  The 
reason  above  given  why  the  trespass  offering 
should  have  been  offered  at  all,  explains  also 
why  it  should  have  been  offered  first.  In  the 
case  of  the  reconsecration  of  tho  defiled  Nazarite 
(Num.  vi.  11,  12),  the  condition  of  the  offerer 
was  different;  he  was  already  in  full  standing 


CHAP.  XIII.  1— XIV.  57. 


115 


as  a  member  of  the  theocracy,  and  offered  the 
pin-offering  first,  and  then  the  trespass  offering. 
Here  the  healed  leper  must  present  the  trespass 
offering  first,  as  the  mark  of  his  restoration  to  the 
privileges  of  the  theocratic  community,  before 
he  offers  any  other  sacrifice. 

The  restored  leper  was  touched  with  the  bleed 
of  the  victim  (ver.  14)  in  the  same  way  as  the 
priests  with  the  blood  of  the  ram  of  consecration 
(viii.  23),  and  doubtless  with  the  same  general 
symbolical  meaning.  Next  comes  the  use  of  the 
oil.  It  was  first  employed  in  a  seveufold  sprink- 
ling towards  the  sanctuary  (ver.  16),  and  then 
touched  with  the  finger  of  the  priest  upon  all  the 
points  which  had  already  been  touched  with  the 
blood  of  the  victim,  "  which  seems  to  have  been 
a  token  of  forgiveness  by  the  blood,  and  of  heal- 
ing by  the  oil."  Patrick.  With  the  remnant  of 
the  oil  in  his  hand,  the  priest  was  to  anoint  the 
head  of  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed.  In  all 
this  then  there  appears  with  sufficient  plainness, 
a  kind  of  consecration ;  but  it  was  a  consecra- 
tion, not  to  any  peculiar  position  or  privilege, 
but  simply  to  his  becoming  again  one  of  the 
chosen  people — the  nation  who  werg  by  their 
calling  "  a  kingdom  of  priests," — from  whom  he 
had  been  temporarily  excluded.  This  is  suffi- 
ciently shown  by  the  following  clause,  to  make 
an  atonement  for  him  before  the  LORD. 
The  unction  was  not  as  a  propitiation  for  his 
gin.  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word — that  is 
provided  for  by  the  same  expression  in  connec- 
tion with  the  sin  offering  in  the  following  verse 
(ver.  19);  but  it  was  to  cover  over  the  gulf  by 
which  he  had  been  separated,  to  make  an  at-one- 
ment  for  him  who  had  been  alienated  and  sepa- 
rated by  b in  leprosy.  Then  follows  the  sin 
offering  with  its  proper  atonement.  There  need 
be  no  question  here  of  the  propriety  of  the  sin 
offering;  it  was  always  in  place  for  sinful  man, 
but  especially  for  one  who  had  been  so  long 
debarred  from  bringing  it  to  the  altar.  Lastly, 
came  also  (ver.  'JO)  the  burnt  offering  with  its 
atonement.  With  the  last  was  offered  a  three- 
fold oblation;  for  although  the  oblation  might 
not  be  offered  with  the  trespass  and  sin  offering, 
yet  in  this  case  these  were  so  peculiar  in  their 
use  that  they  were  able  each  to  pass  on  an  addi- 
tional oblation,  as  it  were,  to  the  burnt  offering. 

Vers.  21-31.  The  alternative  offering  of  the 
poor  leper.  In  this  case  all  things  proceed  as 
before  with  the  same  offerings  and  the  same 
ritual,  except  that  for  the  sin  and  burnt  offerings, 
turtle  doves  or  young  pigeons  are  allowed,  and 
the  oblation  is  reduced  to  the  normal  oblation 
for  the  burnt  offering  (Num.  xv.  4)  of  one  tenth 
deal  of  fine  flour  mingled  with  oil. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  restoration  of  the 
healed  leper  thus  consisted  of  several  stages. 
First,  he  was  examined  by  the  priest,  and  satis- 
factory evidence  being  found  that  the  disease 
was  cured,  he  was  then  purified  without  the  camp 
by  a  solemn  and  significant  ceremonial,  which 
yet  was  not  a  sacrifice.  After  this  he  was  ad- 
mitted to  the  camp,  but  must  still  remain  a  week 
without  entering  either  his  own  tent  or  the  sanc- 
tuary. At  the  end  of  this  time  he  offered  a  sin- 
gularly full  and  solemn  sacrifice,  consisting  of  a 
modified  trespass  offering,  together  with  a  sin 
and  burnt  offering.     He   was  touched  with  the 


Wood  of  his  offering  and  anointed  with  oil. 
Each  stage  of  his  restoration  was  marked  by 
lustrations.  Thus  at  last  was  he  once  more  re- 
stored to  full  communion  with  God  and  full  fel- 
lowship with  the  covenant  people. 

D.  Leprosy  in  a  house.   Vers.  33-53. 

The  communication  on  this  subject  is  again, 
addressed  to  Moses  and  Aaron  conjointly,  since 
here  again  the  exercise  of  the  priestly  functions 
of  examination  and  determination  is  called  into 
play  (ver.  33),  and  it  all  looks  forward  distinctly 
to  the  future,  when  ye  be  come  into  the 
land  of  Canaan  (ver.  34),  for  in  the  wilder- 
ness, of  course,  they  had  no  houses.  The  whully 
prospective  character  of  this  part  of  the  law 
explains  why  it  is  placed  last  of  all. 

"This  regulation  is  plainly  concerning  keep- 
ing the  houses  clean, — the  sanitary  police  as  re- 
gards the  houses; — just  as  the  Jewish  poor-law 
(see  Winer,  Art.  Arme  etc.)  is  a  striking  proof 
of  the  humanity  of  the  Mosaic  legislation.  One 
may  well  say  : — the  tender  care  for  the  superin- 
tendence of  health  and  of  the  poor,  which  here 
appears  in  Israel  in  typical  and  legal  form,  still 
in  the  Christian  commonwealth  comes  far  short 
of  the  true  spiritual  realization.  Trouble  of 
dwellings  and  poor  troubles,  bad  dwellings  and 
faulty  superintendence  of  the  poor,  are  a  chapter 
which  our  time  has  first  taken  into  the  circle  of 
its  activity."  Lange.  That  the  "leprous"  houses 
were  unhealthy,  does  not  yet  seem  established 
on  sufficient  proof;  so  far  as  this  law  is  con- 
cerned, it  may  be  that  the  legislation  rests  en- 
tirely on  other  grounds.  At  the  same  time,  the 
view  of  Lange  may  be  true. 

Ver.  34.  I  put  the  spot  of  leprosy  in  a 
house. — "Thus  also  these  evil  conditions  in 
houses  are  decrees  of  Jehovah.  As  the  house  is 
the  enlarged  human  family,  so  the  decree  upon 
the  house  is  an  enlargement  of  the  decree  upon 
man."  Lange.  "Jehovah  here  speaks  as  the 
Lord  of  all  created  things,  determining  their 
decay  and  destruction,  as  well  as  their  produc- 
tion;  comp.  Isa.  xlv.  7."  Clark.  Abundant  quo- 
tations from  Jewish  authorities  are  cited  by 
Patrick,  showing  that  they  looked  upon  this 
infliction  (from  which,  however,  they  considered 
Jerusalem  to  be  exempted)  as  a  special  and 
direct  divine  judgment.  Certainly,  as  Keil  notes 
in  opposition  to  Knobel,  the  expression  here 
excludes  the  idea  that  the  leprosy  was  commu- 
nicated to  houses  by  infection  from  man;  and 
this  hecomes  still  more  certain  from  the  fact 
that  the  people  who  had  been  in  the  house  are 
regarded  as  clean. 

When  notice  had  been  sent  to  the  priest'(ver. 
35)  of  a  suspicious  appearance  in  the  house,  he 
was  first  to  order  it  to  be  "cleared  (ver.  36), 
lest  everything  in  it  should  become  unclean. 
Consequently,  as  what  was  in  the  house  became 
unclean  only  when  the  priest  had  declared  the 
house  affected  with  leprosy,  the  reason  for  the 
defilement  is  not  to  be  sought  for  in  physical 
infection,  but  must  have  been  of  an  ideal  or 
symbolical  kind."  Keil.  The  rules  guidiDg  the 
priestly  examination,  and  the  course  to  be  pur- 
sued in  conseqnence  of  his  decision  (vers.  37—47), 
are  as  nearly  as  possible  like  those  given  in  the 
case  of  cloth  aud  of  skin.  First:  If  on  the  pre- 
liminary examination  there  seemed  to  be  good 


116 


LEVITICUS. 


ground  for  suspicion,  the  house  was  to  be  shut 
up  for  a  week  (ver.  38) ;  it  was  then  re-examined, 
and  if  the  grounds  of  suspicion  were  confirmed 
by  the  spread  of  the  trouble,  the  affected  stones 
Were  to  be  taken  out,  the  inside  of  the  house 
scraped,  and  the  stones  and  dirt  to  be  carried 
without  the  city  unto  an  unclean  place. 
Then  other  stones  were  to  be  put  in  their  place, 
and  the  house  plastered  with  other  mortar, 
(ver.  42).  This  ended  the  matter,  if  no  fresh 
ground  of  suspicion  arose.  But  if  the  trouble 
reappeared,  the  priest  must  examine  the  house 
once  more,  and  if  he  found  that  the  leprosy  had 
broken  out  afresh,  he  must  command  the  entire 
demolition  of  the  house,  and  the  carrying  forth 
of  its  material  to  an  unclean  place  (ver.  45). 
Any  one  entering  the  house  while  shut  up  became 
unclean  till  evening;  and  if  he  ate  or  slept  in 
the  house,  he  must  also  wash  his  clothes  (vers. 
40,  47).  From  what  has  been  said  before,  it  is 
clear  that  the  ground  of  this  provision  was  not 
any  supposed  danger  of  infection,  but  to  pre- 
vent the  contraction  of  symbolical  uncleanness. 

Vers.  48-53.  The  ceremony  of  purification. 
In  case  the  leprosy  did  not  spread  in  the  house 
afterjthe  means  used  for  its  cure,  the  priest  was  to 
pronounce  it  clean,  and  then  to  perform  purifi- 
catory rites  exactly  like  those  used  for  the  leper 
without  the  camp.  In  reference  to  the  views 
expressed  there,  Lange  says,  here  "One  may 
indeed  ask  whether  the  allegorizing  there  spoken 
of  would  also  be  proper  here.  The  contrast 
between  the  living  bird,  which  flies  free,  and  the 
dead  bird,  seems  here  to  illustrate  the  contrast 
between  the  healthy  sojourn  under  God's  free 
heaven,  and  the  harmful  sojourn  in  musty,  dis- 
eased houses.  But  the  fact  is  also  here  well 
worthy  of  note,  that  there  is  not  the  least  men- 
tion made  of  any  atoning  worship."  In  ver.  53 
it  is  said  that  the  priest  shall  make  an  atone- 
ment for  the  house.  This  is  often  spoken  of 
as  figurative;  but  in  fact  it  is  better  to  take  it 
quite  literally.  According  to  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  the  Hebrew  word  "he  shall  cover,"  ('.  e., 
he  shall,  by  this  ceremony,  put  out  of  sight  the 
uncleanness  of  the  house;  or  in  its  derived  and 
customary  sense,  he  shall  make  an  at-one-ment, 
i.  e.,  he  shall  restore  the  house  from  its  tainted 
character,  shut  up  and  forbidden  to  be  used,  to 
its  proper  relations  and  purposes.  On  leprosy  in 
garments  and  houses,  see  preliminary  note. 

E.  Conclusion,     Vers.  54-57. 

These  verses  simply  form  the  conclusion  of 
the  whole  law  of  leprosy  contained  in  chapters 
xiii.  and  xiv.  Although  these  chapters  are 
made  up  of  no  less  than  three  separate  divine 
communications  (xiii.  1 ;  xiv.  1 ;  38),  yet  they 
constitute  altogether  but  one  closely  connected 
series  of  laws.  The  summary  is  in  the  usual 
form  :  but  in  ver.  56  the  names  of  the  symptoms 
of  various  foims  of  leprosy  are  repeated  from 
xiii.  2. 

DOCTRINAL   AND   ETniCAL. 

I  On  leprosy  in  clothes:  "The  alternative, 
according  to  which  the  Levitical  regulations  are 
to  have  either  a  religious  typical  meaning  alone, 
or  a  dietetic  sanitary  purpose  alone,  is  here 
shown  with  especial  clearness  to  be  incorrect. 


The  typical  point,  indeed,  is  not  to  be  mistaken: 
even  the  attire  of  men  was  not  to  be  infected 
with  plague  spots  of  sinful  corruption.  But  not 
less  prominently,  the  point  of  the  moral  duty  of 
cleanliness  is  brought  forward  upon  a  religious 
basis."   Lange,  Exeg. 

II.  On  leprosy  in  man  :  "  We  must  distinguish 
between  the  horror  of  death  of  the  Grecian  spi- 
rit, and  the  theocratic  antipathy  against  the  signs 
of  death  in  life,  aud  the  remains  of  the  living  in 
the  corpse.  The  act  of  dying  was  ethical  for  the 
Hebrews  in  a  bad,  or  in  a  good  sense.  Even  the 
Old  Testament  knows  an  ethical  Euthanasia  op- 
posed to  the  death  of  despair.  But  in  a  sphere 
where  all  is  founded  upon  immortal  life,  a  being 
for  life  and  not  for  death,  all  signs  of  decay  must 
be  put  aside."   Lange,  Exeg. 

III.  The  peculiar  defilement  of  leprosy,  lead- 
ing to  exclusion  from  the  camp,  or  in  other 
words,  to  excommunication  from  the  ancient 
church,  evidently  has  its  foundation  .in  the  pe- 
culiar character  of  the  disease.  It  was  espe- 
cially associated  with  death,  usually  ultimately 
resulting  in  death,  and  being  in  its  later  stages, 
a  sort  of  living  death — a  death  already  begun  in 
the  members — and  presenting  a  fearful  ima^e  of 
death.  But  death  was  the  sentence  upon  sin, 
and  hence  leprosy  and  its  treatment  have  always 
been  understood  as  symbolizing  sin  and  its  treat- 
ment, both  by  Jewish  and  Christian  commenta- 
tors. 

IV.  The  examination  and  determination  of 
leprosy  was  intrusted  to  the  priests,  not  on  ac- 
count of  their  being  supposed  to  possess  superior 
medical  knowledge,  but  only  in  view  of  its  theo- 
cratic relations.  Any  other  treatment  of  the 
leper  might  properly  be  undertaken  by  physi- 
cians when  any  were  to  be  had  ;  but  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  leper  from,  or  his  restoration  to  the 
commonwealth  of  Israel,  the  communion  of  the 
church  of  God,  was  properly  a  priestly  act.  It 
is  to  this  alone  that  the  law  applies.  This  was 
indeed,  in  strictness  the  province  of  God  Him- 
self; but  as  He  committed  the  administration  of 
His  church  in  general  to  human  hands,  so  also 
particularly  in  this  matter.  The  sentence  of  the 
priests  was  final,  and  admitted  of  no  appeal :  the 
authority  had  been  Divinely  committed  to  them, 
and  although  they  might  perhaps  sometimes  de- 
cide wrongly,  there  was  no  other  redress  than 
a  further  examination  when  there  seemed  to  be 
occasion  for  it,  by  the  same  authority.  Thus 
was  the  priestly  authority  to  bind  and  loose  in 
the  ancient  church  confirmed  in  heaven.  Of 
course  their  decrees  of  exclusion  from  the  earthly 
church  did  not  determine  anything  concerning 
the  leper's  salvation. 

V.  By  the  extension  of  the  term  leprosy  to  gar- 
ments and  houses,  and  the  similar  treatment  of 
them  when  thus  affected,  it  seems  to  be  taught 
that  there  is  not  merely  an  analogy,  but  a  cer- 
tain sympathy  between  man  and  the  inanimate 
things  by  which  he  is  surrounded.  (Comp.  Rom. 
viii.  22).  They  are  to  be  associated  in  his  mind 
with  his  own  state  and  condition,  and  are  to  be 
so  treated  as  to  bring  home  to  him  in  a  lively 
way  the  things  that  concern  himself.  The  Rab- 
bins consider  the  trouble  in  houses  as  confined  to 
the  land  of  Canaan,  and  Divinely  sent  as  a  warn- 
ing to  the  people  against  their  sinfulness.     If 


CHAP.  XIII.  1— XIV.  57. 


117 


this  warning  were  unheeded,  then  the  leprosy 
passed  lo  their  clothes,  and  finally  to  their  per- 
sons. However  this  may  be,  it  is  noticeable  that 
the  leprosy  here  treated  is  only,  as  suggested  by 
Lange,  in  the  various  habitations  of  the  human 
spirit  ;  in  the  body,  which  is  indeed  an  actual 
partof  the  man  himself,  but  which  is  often  looked 
upon  and  spoken  of  as  the  tabernacle  of  the  soul ; 
in  the  clothing,  which  was  a  still  more  outer  co- 
vering ;  and  finally  in  the  house,  the  outermost 
dwelling.  Not  a  word  is  ever  spoken  of  leprosy 
in  animals. 

VI.  In  the  ceremonial  for  the  purification  of 
leprosy,  so  much  more  full  than  for  any  other 
defilement,  it  is  seen  how  the  purificatory  rites 
rise  in  importance  as  the  uncleanness  becomes  a 
more  striking  symbol  of  the  impurity  of  sin. 
This  symbolism  reached  its  climax  in  the  leper, 
and  in  his  purification  ;  but  yet  it  was  only  sym- 
bolism ;  for  as  the  defilement  of  sin  lies  deeper, 
so  must  the  sacrifice  for  its  removal  be  higher. 

VII.  Calvin  observes  that  the  final  cleansing 
of  the  leper  was  appointed  for  the  eighth  day  af- 
ter his  entrance  into  the  camp.  As  his  circum- 
cision, or  first  admission  into  the  church  of  God 
was  on  the  eighth  day  after  his  birth  into  the 
world  ;  so  now  he  was,  on  the  corresponding  day, 
to  be  born  again  into  the  church  after  his  ex- 
clusion. Another  parallel,  too,  may  be  here 
carried  out  between  first  entering  into  commu- 
nion with  God,  and  being  restored  to  it  by  re- 
pentance after  having  been  alienated  by  sin. 

HOMILETICAL   AND   PRACTICAL. 

"The  priestly  people  of  God  have  always  a 
war  to  wage  with  the  defilements  of  the  natural 
life.  .  .  .  Especially  is  the  uncleanness  of  leprosy, 
and  in  it  of  all  diseases,  to  be  combated  ;  so  also 
all  the  unhealthy  conditions  of  houses  and 
clothes  are  an  object  of  the  priestly  battle,  of  the 
wrestling  after  an  ideal  moulding  of  all  the  condi- 
tions of  life.  How  much  these  costly  types  still 
lack  of  their  complete  fulfillment  in  the  Christian 
community  has  already  been  pointed  out."  Lange. 

Leprosy  defiled  all  who  came  in  contact  with 
it;  a  lively  image  of  the  contaminating  effect 
of  sin.  See  1  Cor.  xv.  33.  Tet  it  did  not  defile 
the  priests,  who  were  to  make  a  close  and  care- 
ful inspection  of  it,  because  this  was  their  com- 
manded duty;  so  neither  does  sin  contaminate 
those  who,  in  the  fear  of  God  and  as  duty  to  Him, 
strive  to  the  utmost  to  recover  and  save  the  sinner. 

As  the  priest  for  the  purification  of  the  leper 
went  without  the  camp,  and  there  stayed  and 
held  converse  with  the  leper  for  his  cleansing,  so 
Christ  left  His  dwelling-place  in  heaven  and 
came  among  sinners  that  He  might  purify  them 
from  their  sin.  Hesychius.  "  It  is  remarkable 
how  well  even  the  Jewish  teachers  themselves 
understood  the  symbolical  meaning  of  this  regu- 
lation "'  [concerning  the  exclusion  of  the  leper 
from  the  camp]  ;  "for  thus  speaks  one  of  them 
on  this  place:  '  If  a  man  considers  this,  he  will 
be  humbled  and  ashamed  on  account  of  his  sin  ; 
since  every  sin  is  a  leprosy,  a  spot  upon  his  soul. 
And,  as  it  is  written  of  the  leper,  his  clothes 
shall  be  rent,  etc. ;  in  like  manner,  the  defilement 
on  his  soul,  which  is  far  removed  from  the  holi- 
ness on   high,  shall  equally  separate   him  from 


the  camp  of  Israel.  And  if  a  man  turns  to  re- 
pentance in  order  to  be  cleansed  from  his  spots, 
behold  he  is  clean  from  his  leprosy,  but  other- 
wise the  leprosy  remains  clinging  to  his  soul ; 
and  in  this  world,  and  in  the  world  to  come,  he 
is  far  removed  from  the  whole  camp  there  above 
until  he  has  become  cleansed.'  The  law  instructs 
how  to  know  leprosy,  pronounces  the  leper  un- 
clean, shuts  him  out  from  the  congregation,  but 
it  has  not  power  to  heal  him  ;  this  was  reserved 
for  the  Son  of  God,  to  cleanse  bodily  in  figure, 
and  spiritually  also,  as  the  true  Redeemer  from, 
sin  and  its  consequences."  Von  Gerlach. 

"Ceremonial  uncleanness  involves  ceremonial 
guilt,  and  demands  an  atonement.  So  moral  im- 
purity involves  moral  guilt,  which  requires  a 
propitiation.  The  uncleanness  and  the  guilt 
mutually  imply  each  other;  yet  they  are  totally 
distinct,  and  must  be  removed  by  totally  differ- 
ent means.  The  Spirit  of  God  by  the  truth  of 
Revelation  removes  moral  impurity ;  the  Media- 
tor, by  His  undertaking  for   the  guilty,  relieves 

him  from  the  consequences  of  his  guilt 

The  symbols  of  purification  and  propitiation 
come  together  in  the  ceremonial  connected  with 
the  leper's  re-entrance  into  communion  with 
God.  The  water  and  the  blood  meet  in  the  ini- 
tial sacrifice  ;  the  oil  and  the  blood  are  associated 
in  the  final  one."   Murphy. 

As  the  cicatrices  left  by  ulcers  and  burns  were 
points  where  leprosy  was  peculiarly  likely  to  be 
developed,  so  Origen,  following  the  allegorical 
interpretation,  notes  that  the  wounds  upon  the 
soul,  though  healed,  are  peculiarly  liable  to  be- 
come the  occasion  for  the  development  of  sin. 
The  integrity  of  purity  once  lost,  there  is  a  dan- 
gerous spot  in  the  heart  which  needs  the  care 
of  the  great  Physician  of  souls. 

The  Christian  Fathers  generally  give  a  spiri- 
tual interpretation  of  the  two  birds  used  in  the 
purification  of  the  leper  or  the  leprous  house. 
Thus  Theodoret  (Qti.  19) :  "  They  contain  a  type 
of  the  Passion  of  salvation.  For  as  the  one  bird 
was  slain  and  the  other,  dipped  in  its  blood,  was 
set  free;  so  our  Lord  was  crucified  for  leprous 
humanity,  the  flesh  indeed  receiving  death,  but 
the  Divinity  appropriating  to  itself  the  suffering 
of  the  humanity."  This  thought  is  quite  com- 
mon in  the  Fathers.  The  two  birds  typify  the 
two  natures  of  Christ,  and  the  purification  of  the 
sinner  is  accomplished  only  by  their  union  in  Him. 

The  Fathers  also  consider  the  leprous  house 
symbolical  of  Israel.  (See  e.  g.  Theodoret,  Qu. 
18) :  Israel  was  examined  and  purified,  and  the 
evil  stones  of  its  building  removed  by  the  many 
judgments  upon  the  nation,  and  especially  by 
the  carrying  away  "without  the  camp  "  to  Ba- 
bylon. But  at  last  when  its  incurable  sin  broke 
out  afresh  in  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord  of  life, 
the  whole  house  was  pulled  down  and  its  stones 
cast  out  into  an  unclean  place. 

Blood  and  water  are  constantly  joined  toge- 
ther in  the  purifications  of  the  law,  as  in  this  of 
leprosy,  so  in  all  other  cases.  Whatever  may  be 
the  underlying  truth  on  which  this  symbolism 
rests,  the  symbolism  itself  culminates  in  the 
reality  of  the  purification  for  sin  accomplished 
by  Christ  upon  the  cross,  out  of  whose  side 
flowed  the  blood  and  the  water  for  the  cleansing 
of  the  world.     See  Jno.  xix.  34;   1  Jno.  v.  6,  8. 


118  LEVITICUS. 


FOURTH    SECTION. 

Sexual    Impurities    and    Cleansing s. 

Chapter  XV.  1-33. 

1, 2  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  and  to  Aaron,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  When  any  man  hath  a  running  issue  out  of  his  flesh, 

3  because  of  his  issue  he  is  unclean.     And  this  shall  be  his  uncleanness  in  his  issue  : 
whether  his  flesh  run  with  his  issue,  or  his  flesh  be  stopped  from  his  issue,1  it  is  his 

4  uncleanness.     Every  bed,  whereon  he  lieth  that  hath  the  issue,  is  unclean  :  and 

5  every  thing,  whereon  he  sitteth,  shall  be  unclean.     And  whosoever  toucheth  his 
bed  shall  wash  his  clothes,  aud  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the 

6  even.     And  he  that  sitteth  on  any  thing  whereon  he  sat  that  hath  the  issue  shall 

7  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even.     And 
he  that  toucheth  the  flesh  of  him  that  hath  the  issue  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and 

8  bathe  himself  in  water,  aud  be  unclean  until  the  even.     And  if  he  that  hath  the 
issue  spit  upon  him  that  is  clean  ;  then  he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself 

9  in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even.     And  what  saddle  soever  he  rideth  upon 

10  that  hath  the  issue  shall  be  unclean.  And  whosoever  toucheth  any  thing  that  was 
under  him  shall  be  unclean  until  the  even  :  and  he  that  beareth  any  of  those  things 
shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  be  unclean   until  the  even. 

11  And  whomsoever  he  toucheth  that  hath  the  issue,  and  hath  not  rinsed  his  hands  in 
water,2  he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  be  unclean  until 

12  the  even.     And  the  vessel  of  earth,  that  he  toucheth  which  hath  the  issue,  shall  be 

13  broken:  and  every  vessel  of  wood  shall  be  rinsed  in  water.  And  when  he  that 
hath  an  issue  is  cleansed  of  his  issue  ;  then  he  shall  number  to  himself  seven  days 
for  his  cleansing,  and   wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  his  flesh  in  running  water,  and 

14  shall  be  clean.  And  on  the  eighth  day  he  shall  take  to  him  two  turtle  doves,  or  two 
young  pigeons,  and  come  before  the  Lord  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 

15  congregation,  and  give  them  unto  the  priest :  and  the  priest  shall  offer  them,  the 
one  for  a  sin  offering,  and  the  other  for  a  burnt  offering;  and  the  priest  shall  make 
an  atonement  for  him  before  the  Lord  for  his  issue. 

16  And  if  any  man's  seed  of  copulation  go  out  from  him,  then  he  shall  wash  all  his 

17  flesh  in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even.  And  every  garment,  and  every  skin, 
whereon  is  the  seed  of  copulation,  shall  be  washed  with  water,  and  be  unclean  until 
the  even. 

18  The  woman  also  with  whom  man3  shall  lie  with  seed  of  copulation,  they  shall 
both  bathe  themselves  in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even. 

19  And  if  a  woman  have  an  issue,  and1  her  issue  in  her  flesh  be  blood,  she  shall  be 
put  apart  seven  days  :  and5  whosoever  toucheth  her  shall  be  uuclean  until  the  even. 

20  And  every  thing  that  she  lieth  upon  in  her  separation  shall  be  unclean  :  every 

21  thing  also  that  she  sitteth  upon  shall  be  unclean.  And  whosoever  toucheth  her 
bed  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even. 

22  And  whosoever  toucheth  any  thing  that  she  sat  upon  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and 

23  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even.  And  if  it  be  on  her  bed,  or 
on  any  thing  whereon  she  sitteth,  when  he  toucheth  it,  he  shall  be  unclean  until  the 

24  even.  And  if  any  man3  lie  with  her  at  all,  and  her  flowers  be  upon  him,  he  shall 
be  unclean  seven  days ;  and  all  the  bed  whereon  he  lieth  shall  be  unclean. 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  8.  Tho  Sam.  aud  LXX.  hero  add  the  clause  "  lie  is  uuclean  during  all  the  time  hia  issue  runneth  or  is  stopped. " 

2  Ver.  11.  According  to  the  Syrlac,  thia  washing  of  tho  bunds  was  to  be  the  act,  uot  of  tbe  unclean  person  himself,  but 
of  him  whom  lie  touched. 

a  Vera.  18  mid  24.  The  Sam.  nrMa  the  possessive  pronoun  making  this  "  her  husband." 

*  Vet.  19.  Thi'  Siiln    mid  10  MSS.  supply  tin-  missing  run  jure  lion. 

&  Ver.  l'J.  The  conjunction  here  is  omitted  by  many  HSS-,  the  LXX.  aud  Vulg. 


CHAP.  XV.  1-33. 


119 


25  And  if  a  woman  have  an  issue  of  her  blood  many  days  out  of  the  time  of  her 
separation,  or  if  it  run  beyond  the  time  of  her  separation ;  all  the  days  of  the  issue 
of  her  uncleanness  shall  be  as  the  days  of  her  separation :   she  shall  be  unclean. 

26  Every  bed  whereon  she  lieth  all  the  days  of  her  issue  shall  be  unto  her  as  the  bed 
of  her  separation  :  and  whatsoever  she'sitteth  upon  shall  be  unclean,  as  the  unclean- 

27  ness  of  her  separation.  And  whosoever  toucheth  those  things6  shall  be  unclean,  and 
shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  be  unclean   until  the  even. 

28  But  if  she  be  cleansed  of  her  issue,  then  she  shall  number  to  herself  seven  days,  and 

29  after  that  she  shall  be  clean.  And  on  the  eighth  day  she  shall  take  unto  her  two 
turtles,  or  two  young  pigeons,  and  bring  them  unto  the  priest,  to  the  door  of  the 

30  tabernacle  of  the  [om.  the]  congregation.  And  the  priest  shall  offer  the  one  far  a  sin 
offering,  and  the  other  far  a  burnt  offering ;  and  the  priest  shall  make  an  atone- 
ment for  her  before  the  Lord  for  the  issue  of  her  uncleanness. 

31  Thus  shall  ye  separate7  the  children  of  Israel  from  their  uncleanness ;  that  they 
die  not  in  their  uncleanness,  when  they  defile  my  tabernacle  [dwelling  place8]  that 
is  among  them. 

32  This  is  the  law  of  him  that  hath  an  issue,  and  of  him  whose  seed  goeth  from  him, 

33  and  is  defiled  therewith  ;  and  of  her  that  is  sick  of  her  flowers,  and  of  him  that 
hath  an  issue,  of  the  man  and  of  the  woman,  and  of  him  that  lieth  with  her  that  is 
unclean. 

«  Tor.  27.  D3  5  JISS.  read  D3  toucheth  her. 

»  Ver.  31.  For  DIWTffi  =  ye^shaU  separate,  the  Sam..  4  3ISS.,  LXX.,  and  Tnlg.  read  Dj~Hn*n  =  ye  "hart  nam ;  but 
there  seems  no  sufficient  reason  for  the  change. 

8  Ver.  31.  J3C'3  properly  signifies  dwelling-place,  and  although  always  rendered  tabernacle  in  Ex.  and  Lev.  in  the  A. 
V.,  needs  to  he  distinguished  from  the  777K.  Comp.  note  on  viii.  10. 

side:  touching  the  bed  of  the  unclean  person, 
his  seat,  his  body,  his  saddle ;  being  smeared 
with  his  spittle,  touching  anything  that  passes 
from  him  ; — all  makes  unclean  in  the  first  degree 
for  one  day,  and  requires  a  washing  of  the 
clothes,  and  a  bath.  The  purifying  quarantine 
lasts  for  eight  days.  Timidly  he  must  approach 
the  sanctuary  with  two  turtle-doves,  or  young 
pigeons,  one  of  which  was  appointed  for  a  sin 
offering,  and  the  other  for  a  burnt  offering.  This 
disease  not  only  contaminated,  but  extended  its 
contaminating  power  to  whatever  it  touched. 
In  Num.  v.  2,  it  is  provided  that  the  person  so 
affected  should  be  excluded  from  the  camp."  [It 
does  not  seem  altogether  certain  that  the  affec- 
tion here  described  was  gonorrhoea,  although  it 
is  so  translated  in  the  LXX.,  vers.  4,  5,  G,  8,  9, 
etc.  That  the  word  flesh  is  not  an  euphemism 
(Knobel)  for  the  organ  of  generation  is  evident 
from  vers.  7  and  13  ;  still,  that  the  latter  is  in 
view  as  the  seat  of  the  issue,  is  more  than  pro-, 
bable  from  the  analogy  of  the  woman  in  ver.  19, 
But  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  issue  itself 
nothing  is  said.  It  could  hardly  have  been 
hemorrhoidal,  since  there  is  no  mention  of  blood ; 
it  is  not  likely  to  have  been  syphilitic  (gonnrrlioea 
virulenta),  notwithstanding  the  opinion  of  ,JIi- 
chaelis,  (laws,  art.  212),  both  because  it  is  more 
than  doubtful  if  this  disease  was  known  in  an- 
tiquity, and  because,  if  it  existed,  its  presence 
would  betray  cause  for  more  severe  measures 
than  are  here  prescribed;  it  may  have  been  a 
gonorrhoea  arising  from  weakness,  according  to 
the  view  of  Lange,  and  as  supposed  by  Jerome 
and  the  Rabbins;  but  it  is  noticeable  that 
there  is  no  mention  whatever  made  of  semen  in 
connection  with  it,  and  in  xxii.  4,  this  is  distin- 
guished from  "a  running  issue."  Or  it  may  have 
been  "  more  probably,  simply  blennorrhea  urethrse, 


EXEGETICAL   AXD   CRITICAL. 

The  whole  of  Lange's  Exegetical  explanations 
under  this  chapter  are  here  given.  "  1.  In  his 
sacrificial  law,  Moses  has  throughout  translated 
moral  conditions  into  ritual  forms ;  and  he  has 
done  this,  under  the  spirit  of  revelation,  truly 
witli  wonderful  safety,  striking  precision,  and 
delicacy.  Accordingly  he  here  shows  the  subtle, 
contagious  effects  in  evil  in  legal  pedagogic 
images  of  the  sexual  impurities,  as  they  incur 
guilt,  or  are  more  or  less  innocent,  in  connection 
with  original  sin.  In  so  far  as  our  chapter 
refers  back,  it  forms  the  climax  of  the  preceding 
conditions  of  guilt;  but  in  its  reference  to  the 
following  chapter,  it  forms  the  foundation  for 
the  idea  of  a  general  atonement  for  the  people, 
still  necessary  after  all  the  definite  single  atone- 
ments." 

"  2.  The  law  carries  with  it  the  conse- 
quence that  all  men  are  placed,  by  virtue  of 
their  manifold  connections  and  contacts,  under 
the  sentence:  Ye  are  unclean — unclean  even 
after  all  more  definite  atonements.  Haggai  has 
drawn  out  this  thought  fully ;  John  the  Baptist 
brought  it  into  application  (Hag.  ii.  ISss.,  see 
Com.  Matt.  p.  68).  Hence  the  great  day  of  atone- 
ment must  follow  all  the  more  special  sin  offer- 
ings, and  even  this  can  only  suffice  for  pardona- 
ble sins;  while  the  unpardonable  sins  were  sent 
into  the  desert  upon  the  he-goat  designated  for 
Azazel.      The  idea  of  the  Trapeaic:  Rom.  iii." 

"  3.  The  cases  of  sexual  impurity  which  are 
detailed  here  are  the  following:" 

"Vers.  1-15.  Latent  flowing  of  semen,  gonor- 
rhoea. In  this  sense  it  is  called  a  running 
issue  out  of  his  flesh.  This  uncleanness  of 
the  highest  degree,  as  such,  is  defiling  on  every 


120 


LEVITICUS. 


a  discbarge  of  mucus  arising  from  a  catarrhal 
affection  of  the  mucous  membrane  of  the  urethra 
(urethritis)."  Keil;  so  too,  Kalisch.  Iu  ver.  3, 
a  distinction  is  noticed  in  the  character  of  the 
disease  which,  however,  was  of  no  consequence 
for  the  purpose  in  hand;  the  issue  might  be 
continuous,  or  it  might  be  temporarily  retained. 
In  either  case  the  disease  was  there,  and  its 
subject  was  unclean.  Eosenmiiller  would  un- 
derstand fleth  in  ver.  7  to  be  an  euphemism  as 
in  ver.  2,  and  the  law  to  cover  especially  the  case 
of  the  physician.  In  ver.  11  a  provision  is 
made  that  the  person  affected  might  prevent  the 
communication  of  uncleanness  by  his  touch,  by 
first  rinsing  his  hands  in  water ;  thus  showing 
that  the  uncleanness  communicated  was  of  a 
symbolical  character.  Vers.  14,  15  provide  for 
a  sin  offering  and  burnt  offering,  of  the  humblest 
kind  indeed,  but  yet  here,  as  everywhere  in  the 
law,  sufficient  to  keep  alive  the  association  be- 
tween uncleanness  and  sin.  It  is  declared  that 
the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for 
him  before  the  LORD  for  his  issue,  thus  dis- 
tinctly declaring  his  uncleanness  to  have  been 
the  ground  of  an  alienation  from  God,  to  be  re- 
moved by  a  propitiatory  sacrifice. — F.  G.]. 

"Vers.  16,  17.  A  single  emission  of  seed  was 
treated  as  a  single  uncleanness."  [It  is  proba- 
ble that  the  law  had  in  view  an  involuntary  act ; 
but  it  would,  nevertheless,  apply  in  all  cases, 
and  thus  its  importance  in  checking  the  fearful 
evil  of  self-pollution  needs  no  comment. — F.  G.]. 

"Ver.  18.  So  too  was  the  result  of  a  man  and 
woman  sleeping  together."  [This  euphemism 
may  possibly  be  misunderstood.  The  unclean- 
ness resulted  only  in  case  of  sexual  intercourse, 
and  hence  abstinence  from  such  intercourse  was 
a  necessary  part  of  preparation  for  occasions 
especially  requiring  cleanness.  Ex.  xix.  15; 
1  Sam.  xxi.  5,  6,  etc.  The  law  must  have  ope- 
rated as  an  important  check  upon  sensual  pas- 
sions. For  proof  that  the  same  custom  was 
common  among  other  nations,  see  Knobel.  It  is 
always  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  this 
defilement  is  connected  with  the  general  sinful 
condition  of  man,  and  did  not  pertain  to  his 
original  state.    See  Gen.  i.  28. — F.  G.]. 

"  Vers.  10-24.  The  menstruation  was  defined 
as  an  uncleanness  for  seven  days."  [The  actual 
duration  is  not  normally  more  than  tour  or  five 
days  ;  but  the  period  of  a  week  seems  to  be  fixed, 
partly  to  fully  cover  all  ordinary  cases,  partly 
"on  account  of  the  significance  of  the  number 
seven."  Keil.  During  all  this  time  the  woman 
communicated  uncleanness  to  every  person  she 
touched:  but  especially  (ver.  24)  whoever  had 
sexual  intercourse  with  her  (for  Keil  shows  that 
this  must  be  the  meaning)  became  unclean  for 
the  full  term  of  her  uncleanness,  6eveu  days. 
In  xx.  18  it  is  provided  that  in  case  of  sucli  in- 
tercourse both  parties  should  be  "cut  off  from 
among  their  people,"  as  having  committed  an 
abominable  act.  The  case  here  provided  for 
must  therefore  be  that  of  the  sudden  and  un- 
expected coming  on  of  menstruation,  so  that  the 
man  became  unintentionally  defiled.  But  while 
uncleanness  was  thus  strongly  communicated  to 
periom,  it.  only  affected  among  things  those  on 
which  the  woman  sat  or  lay  down.   She  was  thus 


not  debarred  from  the  fulfillment  of  her  ordinary 
domestic  duties. 

[It  has  already  been  noticed  under  chap.  xii. 
that  the  provisions  of  the  law  in  regard  to  child 
birth  are  intentionally  separated  from  the  pre- 
sent law  in  order  to  mark  birth  distinctly  and 
emphatically  as  a  subject  by  itself.  The  two 
things  may  be  closely  connected  naturally  ;  but 
when  there  has  occurred  another  beginning  of 
human  life,  the  entrance  upon  the  world  of 
another  immortal  and  accountable  being,  the 
event  has  a  gravity  and  importance  which  re- 
quires its  distinct  treatment  apart  from  the 
ordinary,  frequently  recurring  conditions  of 
life.— F.  G.]. 

"Vers.  2-5—30.  The  woman  diseased  with  a 
bloody  issue  was  place!  under  the  same  regula- 
tion as  the  man  with  a  flow  of  semen."  [Blood 
seems  to  be  used  here  (as  throughout  this  chap- 
ter) for  that  which  has  the  general  appearance  of 
blood,  and  is  popularly  called  by  that  name. 
Hence  what  is  here  referred  to  is  an  issue  of  a 
menstrual  character,  either  out  of  its  proper  time, 
or  prolonged  beyond  its  time.  This  being  ab- 
normal required  the  Bame  treatment,  the  same 
exclusion  from  the  camp  (Num.  v.  2),  and  the 
same  offering  for  its  "atonement"  as  in  the  case 
of  the  man.  Ordinary  menstruation  required 
no  sacrifice. — F.  G.]. 

"  Ver.  31.  The  supplement,  Thus  shall  ye 
separate  the  children  of  Israel,  etc,  shows 
that  these  regulations  are  not  merely  typical, 
but  also  sanitary;  that  they  aim  at  the  duty  of 
sexual  purity,  both  in  moral,  and  in  bodily  rela- 
tion. The  lying  of  a  man  with  an  unclean 
woman,  vers.  33  and  24,  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  sexual  intercourse  (ch.  xviii.  19;  xx. 
18").     [But  see  under  vers.  19-24.— F.  G.]. 

"  That  of  all  the  impurities  the  sexual  are  ren- 
dered so  prominent,  shows  the  earnest  consecra- 
tion wherewith  the  law  places  the  sexual  foun- 
tain of  the  natural  life  of  man  under  the  law  of 
chastity  and  holiness.  So  also  it  abhors  exceed- 
ingly profanations  or  defilements  of  this  fountain. 
On  this  side  the  rudeness  of  heathenism  spreads 
through  all  the  centuries  of  the  Christian  era 
like  a  dark  shadow,  while  the  consecration  of  the 
sex  life  was  already  announced  iu  the  centre  of 
Israel  in  presage  of  ideal  nuptials."  [On  the 
existence  of  similar  ordinances  ami  customs 
among  other  nations,  see  Knobel,  B'abr,  and 
the  various  articles  in  the  Bible  Dictiona- 
ries.— F.  G.]. 

DOCTRINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  All  the  defilements  in  this  and  the  preceding 
chapters  are  here  presented  on  their  theocratic, 
not  on  their  natural  side.  Nothing  is  anywhere 
said  in  them  of  means  of  cure.  The  attitude 
of  the  priest  toward  them  is  not  that  of  the 
physician,  aiming  at  their  removal ;  but  rather 
of  the  guardian  of  the  sanctuary,  first  determin- 
ing their  existence,  and  then  when  they  have 
been  removed,  undertaking  the  purifications  by 
which  the  polluted  person  may  be  restored  to 
his  forfeited  privilege  of  approaching  God  iu 
His  sanctuary,  and  again  mingling  with  the 
holy  people. 

II.  The  object  of  the  laws  of  purity  is  mani- 


CHAP.  XVI.  1-34. 


121 


festly  mainly  moral.  They  may  also  have  inci- 
dentally a  hygienic  purpose,  but  this  is  entirely 
subordinate.  The  main  object  is  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  majesty  of  God.  Nothing  impure 
may  appear  in  His  presence,  and  hence  all  those 
bodily  conditions  which  are  associated  with,  and 
suggestive  of  impurity,  are  marked  as  unclean, 
and  not  only  the  persons  affected  by  them  are 
excluded  from  the  sanctuary,  or  even  from  the 
camp,  but  all  contact  with  them  is  to  be  avoided 
by  the  holy  people. 

III.  Very  much  is  often  said  of  the  extreme 
frequency  of  these  defilements,  as  if  the  Israelites 
must,  under  the  operation  of  these  laws,  have 
lived  in  au  almost  perpetual  state  of  ceremonial 
uncleanness.  But  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
we  have  in  these  chapters  a  collection  of  the 
cases  of  uncleanness  provided  for,  which  has 
upon  the  mind  of  the  reader  something  of  the 
effect  of  the  perusal  of  a  medical  book ;  finding 
so  many  diseases  enumerated,  he  is  apt  to  sup- 
pose a  state  of  disease  far  more  common  than  it 
really  is.  Uncleanness,  notwithstanding  its  ap- 
parent frequency  when  the  account  of  all  its 
varieties  is  collected  together,  was  still  an  ab- 
normal state,  and  in  the  great  majority  of  cases 
continued  only  a  short  time,  being  limited  by 
the  approaching  "evening"  at  whatever  time 
in  the  day  it  may  have  occurred. 

IV.  In  the  Levitical  legislation  the  difference 
between  actual  sin  and  uncleanness  which  was 
merely  symbolical  of  sin,  is  made  to  appear  very 
clearly.  In  this  chapter  particularly,  four  cases 
of  uncleanness  are  mentioned,  two  of  which 
(2-15,  and  2o-30)  were  simply  diseases,  and  the 
other  two  (1G-24)  entirely  natural  and  sinless; 
yet  not  only  did  the  disease  make  unclean,  but 
also  that  natural  act  or  condition,  which  accord- 
ing to  the  Divine  constitution  is  necessary  for 
the  perpetuation  of  the  race  in  accordance  with 
His  own  command.  In  all  this  there  can  be 
nothing  sinful  in  itself;  but  as  man's  whole  con- 
dition is  sinful,  so  are  these  things  constituted 
unclean,  thereby  to  symbolize,  and  impress  upon 
the  mind  of  man  the  character  of  his  whole  re- 
lation to  God  who  is  perfect  in  holiness. 


HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 
The  laws  of  this  chapter  impose  many  re- 
straints upon  the  intercourse  of  the  sexes;  that 
was  the  will  of  God  shown  of  old  by  definite 
educational  precepts.  It  remains  His  will  still, 
no  longer  embodied  in  such  precepts,  but  an- 
nounced in  general  principles.  See  1  Tliess.  iv.  4. 
That  the  defilements  here  spoken  of  were  cere- 
monial and  symbolical  only,  is  shown  by  the  fact 
(ver.  12)  that  the  earthen  vessel  was  to  be  broken, 
while  the  wooden  one  (which  is  also  absorptive) 
was  only  to  be  rinsed  with  water.  Had  the  de- 
filement been  actual,  the  law  must  have  been 
the  same  for  both.     Theodoret. 

The  especial  object  of  the  laws  of  uncleanness 
is  declared  (ver.  31)  to  be  lest  "  they  defile 
my  tabernacle."  Many  things  which  are 
natural  and  right  in  this  our  earthly  life,  are 
yet  unsuitable  for  the  immediate  presence  of 
God.  Man  may,  nay,  under  the  Divine  consti- 
tution of  his  nature,  must  do  many  things  which 
yet  are  so  far  apart  from  the  spirituality  of  the 
Divine  Nature  that  they  evidently  need  to  be 
widely  separated  from  acts  of  worship.  Yet 
they  are  not  thereby  condemned  as  sinful,  but 
only  there  is  brought  into  prominence  the  infinite 
distance  by  which  man  is  separated  from  God. 

"  Not  only  cleanness,  but  cleanliness  also,  had 
its  meaning,  embodied  in  religious  customs,  as 
the  loth  chapter  shows,  in  the  most  striking  fea- 
tures under  the  law.  Uncleanness  may  exist, 
even  with  a  considerable  measure  of  religious 
feeling  and  good-will  in  the  forms  of  negligence, 
of  false  artlessness,  and  even  of  a  wild  geniality. 
In  the  delineation  of  the  endlessly  fine  and 
subtle  contagious  power  of  uucleanness,  there 
comes  into  view  the  whole  mysterious  connec- 
tion of  mankind  in  sinfulness,  as  it  has  been 
shown  by  the  prophet  Haggat  (ch.  ii.),  and  as  it 
lies  as  the  foundation  for  the  baptism  of  John 
the  Baptist.  Thus  also  this  idea  of  the  immea- 
surable and  inscrutable  contagion,  and  of  the 
totality  and  universality  of  its  guilt,  leads  to  the 
need  and  the  establishment  of  the  universal  and 
common  atonement.  It  presages  an  express, 
great,  and  single  Divine  institution."  Lauge. 


PART  FOURTH.    THE  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT. 


"The  Annual,   Universal,  National  Feast  of  Purification.      The  Great  Day  of  Atonement,  and  the 

Great  Propitiation? ' — Lange. 

Chap.   XVI.   1-34. 

1  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  after  the  death  of  the  two  sons  of  Aaron,  when 

2  they  offered1  before  the  Lord,  and  died;  ami  the  Lord  said  unto  Mose3,  Speak 

TEXTVAL   AND    GRAMMATICAL. 

'  Ver.  1.  The  LXX.,  the  Targs.  of  Onk.,  Jon.  and  Jerus  ,  the  Yul£.  and  Syr.  here  insert  the  words  strange  fire,  as  is 
obviously  implied. 

23 


122  LEVITICUS. 


unto  Aaron  thy  brother,  that  lie  come  not  at  all  times  into  the  holy  place  within 
the  vail  before  the  mercy  seat,  which  is  upon  the  ark  ;  that  he  die  not :  for  I  will 

3  appear  in  the  cloud  upon  the  mercy  seat.  Thus  [With  this2]  shall  Aaron  come 
into  the  holy  place:  with  a  young  bullock  for  a  sin  offering,  and  a  ram  for  a  burnt 

4  offering.  He  shall  put  on  the  [a3]  holy  linen  coat,  and  he  shall  have  the  [omit 
the3]  linen  breeches  upon  his  flesh,  and  shall  be  girded  with  a  linen  girdle,  and 
with  the  [a3]  linen  mitre  shall  he  be  attired:  these  are  holy  garments;   therefore 

5  shall  he  wash  [bathe1]  his  flesh  in  water,  and  so  put  them  on.  And  he  shall  lake 
of  the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel  two  kids  [bucks5]  of  the  goats  for  a 
sin  offering,  and  one  ram  for  a  burnt  offering. 

6  And  Aaron  shall  offer  his  bullock  of  the  siu  offering,  which  is  for  himself,  and 

7  make  an  atonement  for  himself,  and  for  his  house.  And  he  shall  take  the  two  goats, 
and  present  them  before  the  Lord  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [om.  the]  con- 

8  gregation.     And  Aaron  shall  cast  lots  upon  the  two  goats ;  one  lot  for  the  Lorp, 

9  and  the  other  lot  for  the  scapegoat  [for  Azazel6].     And  Aaron  shall  bring  the  goat 
10  upon  which  the  Lord's  lot  fell,  and  offer  him  for  a  sin  offering.     But  the  goat,  on 

which  the  lot  fell  to  be  the  scapegoat  [for  Azazel6],  shall   be  presented  alive  before 
the  Lord,  to  make  an  atonement  with  him,  and  to  let  him  go  for  a  scapegoat   [for 
Azazel6]  into  the  wilderness. 
1 L       And  Aaron  shall  bring  the  bullock  of  the  sin  offering,  which  is  for  himself,  and 
shall  make  an  atonement  for  himself,  and  for  his  house,  and  shall  kill  the  bullock 

12  of  the  sin  offering,  which  is  for  himself:  and  he  shall  take  a  [the7]  censer  full  of 
burning  coals  of  fire  from  off  the  altar  before  the  Lord,  and   his  hands  full  of 

13  sweet  incense  beaten  small,  and  bring  it  within  the  vail:  and  he  shall  put  the  in- 
cense upon  the  fire  before  the  Lord,  that  the  cloud  of  the  incense  may  cover  the 

14  mercy  seat  that  is  upon  the  testimony,  that  he  die  not :  and  he  shall  take  of  the 
blood  of  the  bullock,  and  sprinkle  it  with  his  finger  upon8  the  mercy  seat  eastward 
[on  the  east  side9]  ;  and  before  the  mercy  seat  shall  he  sprinkle  of  the  blood  with 
his  finger  seven  times. 

15  Then  shall  be  kill  the  goat  of  the  sin  offering,  that  is  for  the  people,  and  bring 
his  blood  within  the  vail,  and  do  with  that  blood  as  he  did  with  the  blood  of  the 

16  bullock,  and  sprinkle  it  upon8  the  mercy  seat,  and  before  the  mercy  seat:  and  ho 
shall  make  an  atonement  for  the  holy  place,  because  of  the  uncleanness  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  and  because  of  their  transgressions  in  all  their  sins :  and  so  shall  he 
do  for  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation,  that  remaiueth  among  them 

17  in  the  midst  of  their  uncleanness.  And  there  shall  be  no  man  in  the  tabernacle 
of  the  [omit  the]  congregation  when  he  goeth  in  to  make  an  atonement  in  the  holy 
place,  until  he  come  out,  and  have  made  an  atonement  for  himself,  and   for  his 

18  household,  and  for  all  the  congregation  of  Israel.  And  he  shall  go  out  unto  the 
altar  that  is  before  the  Lord,  ami  make  an  atonement  for  it ;  and  shall  take  of  the 
blood  of  the  bullock,  and  of  the  blood  of  the  goat,  and  put  it  upon  the  horns  of  the 

19  altar  round  about.  And  he  shall  sprinkle  of  the  blood  upon  it  with  his  fingers  seven 
times,  and  cleanse  it,  and  hallow  it  from  the  uncleanness  of  the  children  of  Israel. 

20  And  when  he  hath  made  an  end  of  reconciling  [making  atonement  for10]  the 
holy  place,  and  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation,  and  the  altar,  he 

2  Ver.  3.  J1XT3-    There  seerus  no  reason  why  the  Hen.  should  not  be  rendered  literally. 

3  Ver.  4.  The  articles  are  not  in  the  Heb.,  and  should  be  omitted  fis  mHearfincr. 

*  Ver.  4.   VfP,  see  Textual  Note  3°  on  x.v.  8.     Tut'  Saul,  and  1.XX.  luaer.  the  word  all  before  hUJUih. 

R  Ver.  5.  'TUt?,  see  Textual  Note  ^  on  iv.  23.    The  same  word  is  used  also  vers.  7,  8,  etc. ;  but  it  seems  unnecessary 

to  alter  the  translation  throughout,  as  this  is  the  only  place  in  which  the  sense  is  affcted. 

6  Vers.  8,  10  (bis),  26.    7TNTJ".    The  word  occurs  only  he. e,  and  in  the  wide  difference  of  opinion  existing  as  to  its 

mesninir,  it  seems  far  better  to  retain  the  Heb.  word  unchanged,  as  is  done  in  many  modern  critical  trauslations.    It 
occui--'  in  :i  1  i-iM-ri  without  the  nr  icle.    Fur  rlie  meaning,  Bee  exegesis. 

I    Vi  i.  U.   It  is  hotter  to  retain  the  deliuite  article,  us  expressed  in  the  Heb. 

8  Vers.  M,  lfi.  For  7j?— upon,  the  Sam.  reads  7X='"/'"''',  imoardt. 

•  Ver.  14.  T[T\p='trnmrd  the  east  is  to  he  connected  with  the  mercy  seat,  and  not  with  sprinlde.     The  high  priest 

looking  west,  faced  tie-  mercy  seat,  and  sprinkled  it  on  the  side  next  to  him,  i.  e.  the  Bide  toward  the  east.     This  cannot 
I,,   clearly  expressed  in  Bnglisn  without  a  slight  mndincntion  of  the  phrase. 
10  Vor.  20.    133*3,     Bee  Ii  xiu.u  Mote  "  on  vi.  3U  I.23J. 


CHAP.  XVI.  1-34. 


123 


21  stall  bring  [offer11]  the  live  goat:  and  Aaron  shall  lay  both  his  hands12  upon  the 
head  of  the  live  goat,  and  confess  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  and  all  their  trangressions  in  [according  to13]  all  their  sins,  putting  them 
upon  the  head  of  the  goat,  and  shall  send  him  away  by  the  hand  of  a  fit14  man  into 

22  the  wilderness :  and  the  goat  shall  bear  upon  him  all  their  iniquities  unto  a  land 
not  inhabited  :15  aud  he  shall  let  go  the  goat  in  the  wilderness. 

23  Aud  Aaron  shall  come  into  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the]  congregation,  and 
shall  put  off  the  linen  garments,  which  he  put  on  when  he  went  into  the  holy  place, 

24  and  shall  leave  them  there:  and  he  shall  wash  [bathe*]  his  flesh  with  water  in  the 
holy  place,  and  put  on  his  garments,  and  come  forth  and  offer  his  burnt  offering, 
aud  the  burnt  offering  of  the  people,  and  make  an  atonement  for  himself,  and  for 

25  the  people.     And  the  fat  of  the  sin  offering  shall  he  burn  upon  the  altar. 

26  And  he  that  let  go  the  goat  for  the  scapegoat  [for  Azazel6]  shall  wash  his  clothes 

27  and  bathe  his  flesh  in  water,  and  afterward  come  into  the  camp.  And  the  bullock 
for  the  sin  offering,  and  the  goat  for  the  sin  offering,  whose  blood  was  brought  in 
to  make  atonement  in  the  holy  place,  shall  one  carry  forth  without  the  camp ;  and 

28  they  shall  burn  in  the  fire  their  skins,  and  their  flesh,  and  their  dung.  And  he 
that  burnetii  them  shall  wash  his  clothes  and  bathe  his  flesh  in  water,  and  after- 
ward he  shall  come  into  the  camp. 

29  Aud  this  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  unto  you:  that  in  the  seventh  month,  on  the 
tenth  day  of  the  month,  ye  shall  afflict  your  souls,  and  do  no  work  at  all,  whether 

30  it  be  one  of  your  own  country,  or  a  stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you:  for  on 
that  day  shall  the  priest  make  an  atonement  for  you,  to  cleanse  you,  that  ye  may 

31  be  clean  from  all  your  sins  before  the  Lord.     It  shall  be  a  sabbath  of  rest  unto 

32  you,  and  ye  shall  afflict  your  souls,  by  a  statute  for  ever.  And  the  priest,  whom 
he  [one16]  shall  anoint,  aud  whom  he  [one16]  shall  consecrate  to  minister  in  the 
priest's  office  in  his  father's  stead,  shall  make  the  atonement,  and  shall  put  on  the 

33  linen  clothes,  even  the  holy  garments :  and  he  shall  make  an  atonement  for  the 
holy  sanctuary,  and  he  shall  make  an  atonement  for  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit 
the]  congregation,  and  for  the  altar,  and  he  shall  make  an  atonement  for  the  priests, 

34  and  for  all  the  people  of  the  congregation.  And  this  shall  be  an  everlasting  sta- 
tute unto  you,  to  make  an  atonement  for  the  children  of  Israel  for  all  their  sins 
once  a  year. 

And  he  did  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses. 

u  Ver.  20.  yipH,  the  same  word  as  is  used  of  the  other  goat  in  ver.  9,  and  the  common  word  for  sacrificial 
offering. 

12  Ver.  21.  For  the  IT  of  the  text,  35  MSS.  read  l'T,  as  in  the  k"ri. 

TT  TT  t 

55  Ver.  21.  According  to  is  both  a  better  translation  of  the  prep.  7  and  gives  a  better  sense. 

H  Ver.  21.  'HJJ,  air.  Aey.,  according  to  Foerst  existing  or  appointed  at  a  convenient  time.  LXX.  crotjtio?,  Vulg.  paratus. 
The  sense  of  appointed  wonld  probably  bettter  express  the  neb.  than  fit  (so  Targ.  Jon.,  and  so  Hosenmneller) ;  but  there  is 
neither  sufficient  certainty  nor  sufficient  difference  to  make  the  change. 

15  Ver.  22.  PPH.  LXX.  aftarov,  Vulg.  solitariam,  Onk.  uninltaOitable,  Jon.  desolate,  Syr.  uncultivated.  Lit.  a  land  cut 
off.    The  A.  V.  sufficiently  expresses  the  sense. 

19  Ver.  32.  Th  -se  verbs  must  either  be  rendered  impersonally,  or  else  taken  in  the  passive,  as  the  Heb.  idiom  very 
well  allows. 


EXEQETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

Here  a  new  Parashah  of  the  law  begins,  ex- 
tending through  ch.  xviii.  Amos  ix.  7-15  forma 
the  parallel  Proper  Lesson  from  the  prophets. 
That  prophecy  is  cited  by  St.  James  at  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.  16,  17),  and  ap- 
plied to  the  building  up  of  the  Gentiles  into  the 
Church  of  Christ.  Wordsworth  suggests  that 
he  may  have  selected  that  particular  prophecy 
because  it  was  associated  in  his  mind,  through 
the  public  readings  in  the  synagogues,  with  the 
passage  before  us  "which  displays,  in  a  figure, 
the  work  of  Christ,  our  great  High  Priest,  en- 


tering into  the  heavenly  Holy  of  Holies,  and 
reconciling  the  world  to  God  by  His  own  blood 
(Heb.  ix.  7-12,  24-28)." 

This  chapter  forms  the  culmination  of  all  that 
has  gone  before,  of  the  laws  both  of  sacrifices 
and  of  purity,  and  therefore  forms  the  fitting 
conclusion  of  the  whole  portion  of  Leviticus 
concerned  with  the  means  of  approach  to  God. 
The  significance  of  its  symbolical  ritual  is  dwelt 
upon  in  the  9th  ch.  of  the  Ep.  to  the  Heb.  The 
Holy  of  Holies  was  entered  only  on  the  day  and 
with  the  sacrifices  here  prescribed,  and  this  day 
was  the  only  day  of  fasting  appointed  in  the 
Mosaic  law.  The  ritual  of  its  sacrifices  was 
peculiar  and  impressive,  and  the  goat  for  Azazel 


124 


LEVITICUS. 


is  something  so  unlike  any  thing  else  in  the  Levi- 
tical  system  as  to  have  occasioned  the  utmost  per- 
plexity to  expositors.  In  xxiii.  '27  (Heb.)  the  Jay 
is  called  "the  day  of  atonements  (in  the  plural), 
as  if  this  included  in  itself  all  other  atonements, 
or  at  least  was  the  most  exalted  and  important 
of  them  all.  In  ver.  31  (Heb.)  it  is  spoken  of  as  a 
"Sabbath  of  Sabbaths,"  and  by  the  later  Jews 
it  was  commonly  called  simply  "Joma,"=day, 
as  the  day  of  all  days.  It  is  probably  intended 
by  St.  Luke  in  the  expression  "  the  fast,"  Acts 
xxvii.  9.  See  Com.  there.  The  high-priest 
alone  could  officiate,  and  this  he  must  do  in  a 
peculiar  dress  worn  only  on  this  day.  By  t lie 
ritual  of  this  day,  the  imperfection  and  insuffi- 
ciency of  all  other  sacrifices  was  brought  pro- 
minently into  view,  while  yet  its  own  imperfec- 
tion was  necessarily  involved  in  its  yearly  repe- 
tition. 

The  chapter  consists  of  two  portions,  of  which 
the  first  (vers.  2-28)  contains  directions  for  this 
great  annual  expiation;  and  the  second  (vers. 
29-34),  the  command  for  its  yearly  celebration. 
The  whole  of  Lange's  Exegetical  Notes  are  here 
given. 

"  1.  It  is  first  of  all  to  be  noticed  that  the 
yearly  feast  of  atonement  is  mentioned  twice  in 
the  Levitical  law  of  worship,  viz.  once  here  as 
the  culminating  point  of  the  laws  and  expiations 
of  purifications;  and  again  in  ch.  xxiii.  in  the 
midst  of  the  feasts  of  the  Lord  for  the  positive 
sanctification  of  the  land  and  the  people,  as  a 
solemn  prelude  to  the  most  festal  and  joyous  of 
all  the  feasts,  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  The 
point  of  unity  of  both  lines  is  the  thought:  that 
Israel  can  then  only  attain  to  the  full  joys  of  the 
feast  of  tabernacles,  when,  on  the  great  Sabbath 
of  the  seventh  month — the  single  exclusive  day 
of  expiation  and  regular  fast  day  of  the  year — 
it  has  humbled  and  purified  itself  before  Jehovah 
with  the  confession,  that  all  its  legal  atonements 
had  not  brought  full  purification;  that  the  in- 
struments of  atonement,  priests  and  altar,  must 
themselves  be  atoned  for ;  that  not  even  by  these 
comprehensive  general  supplications  and  general 
atonements  could  complete  atonement  be  made  ; 
that  a  guilt  remaining  in  secret  must  be  sent 
home  to  Azazel  as  inexpiable  under  the  traptaic 
of  Jehovah  (Rom.  iii.  25) — an  act  with  which 
the  Levitical  atonement  sweeps  out  beyond  itself 
to  a  future  and  real  atonement. 

"2.  Corresponding  to  the  thoughts  that  have 
been  mentioned,  we  have: 

"  a.  The  prevailing  unapproachableness  of 
the  holy  God,  only  momentarily  suspended 
tli rough  a  hypothetical,  typically  accomplished 
power  of  approach,  as  the  idea  of  a  future 
perfect  atonement.  This  law  was  enforced 
by  the  fact  that  the  two  eldest  sons  of 
Aaron  had  died  through  approaching  pro- 
fanely, and  by  the  threat  that  he  too  should 
die  if  he  went  behind  the  curtain  of  the  Holy  of 
holies,  where  Jehovah  was  manifested  in  a  cloud 
over  the  mercy-seat  (Jer.  xxx.  21),  otherwise 
than  according  to  the  stated  conditions,  once  a 
year.  (Heb.  ix.  7).  Vers.  1,  2."  [The  historical 
connection  of  this  chapter  with  the  death  of  Na- 
dab  and  Abihu  does  not  exclude  the  logical  con- 
nection with  the  legislation  of  the  rest  of  the 
book.     The  provision  for  the  day  of  atonement 


was  necessary  in  any  case  to  the  completeness 
of  the  Levitical  system,  but  the  command  for  its 
observance  was  immediately  occasioned  by  their 
unauthorized  act.  There  are  no  data  to  show  the 
length  of  the  interval  between  their  death  and 
the  Divine  communication  contained  in  this 
chapter;  but  it  was  probably  short.  Ver.  2. 
Within  the  vail — which  separated  the  holy 
place,  the  outer  part  of  the  sanctuary  where  the 
priests  daily  ministered  at  the  altar  of  incense, 
from  the  holy  of  holies  which  was  never  to  be 
entered  by  man  except  as  provided  for  in  this 
chapter.  On  the  significance  of  this  arrange- 
ment see  Doctrinal  remarks  below.  The  custom 
of  having  peculiarly  sacred  parts  in  the  heathen 
temples  is  well  known.     The   mercy-seat. — 

j"H33  LXX.  'i?.aarfipiov,Y\l\g.,propitiatorium,  and 
so  the  other  ancient  versions.  The  LXX.  word 
is  twice  used  in  the  N.  T.,  being  translated  mercy- 
seat  in  Heb.  ix.  5,  but  propitiation  in  Rom.  iii.  25. 
The  word  occurs  only  in  Ex.,  in  this  chapter, 
and  in  Num.  vii.  89,  and  1  Chr.  xxviii.  11.  It 
is  evident  from  Ex.  xxv.  22;  xxx.  6;  and  Num. 
vii.  89,  that  it  was  the  place  appointed  for  the 
peculiar  manifestation  of  the  presence  of  Go  1  ; 
and  from  this  chapter,  that  it  was  the  objective 
point  of  the  highest  propitiatory  rites  known  to 
the  law.  The  English  word  only  partially  con- 
veys the  sense.  I  will  appear  in  the  cloud. 
— -There  has  been  much  question  whether  this 
means  the  light-giving  cloud  which  overshadowed 
and  at  certain  times  filled  the  tabernacle,  and 
which  according  to  the  Jewish  authorities,  was 
afterwards  represented  by  the  Shcchinah  above 
the  ark  ;  or  whether  it  refers  simply  to  the  cloud 
of  incense  arising  from  the  censer  of  the  high- 
priest  as  he  passed  within  the  vail.  The  subject 
is  ably  and  fully  discussed  by  Ruhr  (Symb.  I.  c. 
V.  \  2,  IV.  2d  aufi.,  pp.  471-481)  who  concludes 
in  favor  of  the  latter.  See  the  authorities  there 
cited.  The  determination  in  reality  involves 
two  separate  questions  :  first,  whether  the  pro- 
mise of  the  text  is  personal  to  Aaron,  or  whether 
ii  is  given  in  perpetuity  to  him  and  his  success- 
ors in  the  high-priesthood;  and  second,  whe- 
ther, after  the  cessation  of  the  wanderings  in  the 
wilderness,  there  ever  was  such  a  Shechinah. 
In  regard  to  the  latter  question,  later  Jewish 
tradition,  from  the  time  of  the  Targums  down, 
is  certainly  sufficiently  emphatic  in  the  affirma- 
tive ;  but  for  so  remarkable  and  perpetual  a  mi- 
racle, higher  authority  is  required.  Bahr  has 
shown  that  Philo  and  Josephus,  as  well  as  the 
Christian  Fathers  to  the  time  of  S.  Jerome,  knew 
nothing  of  it,  and  it  is  never  mentioned  in  the 
Scriptures,  or  in  the  Jewish  Apocryphal  books. 
Nevertheless,  the  incense  is  not  spoken  of  until 
ver.  12,  and  it  seems  unlikely  that  the  cloud 
from  it  should  be  intended  here.  God  had 
hitherto  manifested  His  presence  to  Mo«es  and 
to  the  people  in  the  cloud  which  covered  the 
tabernacle,  and  that  in  various  localities;  it 
would  not  be  strange  that  He  should  now 
promise  a  similar  manifestation  to  Aaron  by  the 
same  instrumentality.  That  this  Bhould  take 
place  upon  the  mercy-seat  was  a  consi  quenoe 
of  Aaron's  coming  before  it  in  this  highest  act 
of  propitiation.  Of  course  this  would  giv  i.o 
ground  to   suppose   that  sue1!  a   manifes  ation 


CHAP.  XVI.  1-34. 


125 


continued  there  perpetually,  or  at  any  other 
time  than  that  on  which  it  is  here  especially 
promised.  Rosenmiiller,  Keil,  and  most  other 
commentators,  however,  accept  the  Jewish  tra- 
dition of  the  Shechinah. — F.  G.]. 

"  6.  He  must  next  protect  himself  with  a  great 
sacrifice;  for  he  is  directed  to  take  a  young 
bullock  for  a  sin  offering,  and  a  ram  for  a 
burnt  offering.  By  these  the  great  faults  of 
the  priesthood  on  the  one  side,  and  the  great 
duties  on  the  other  side  are  signified,"  ver.  3. 
[Come  into  the  holy  is  sometimes  understood 
in  relation  to  Aaron's  entrance  into  the  taberna- 
cle merely,  because  these  offerings  were  offered 
before  he  passed  beyond  the  court  at  all;  but  as 
the  point  of  the  whole  ritual  is  the  entrance  into 
the  holy  of  holies,  the  word3  are  more  fitly  in- 
terpreted in  relation  to  this.  Full  account  is 
given  of  the  ritual  of  tbe  sin  offering  in  vers. 
11-14  and  27,  28;  the  sacrifice  of  the  priestly 
burnt  offering  was  at  the  same  time  with  that 
of  the  people  at  the  conclusion  of  the  other 
sacrifices  (ver.  24]. — F.  0.]. 

"  c.  After  this,  he  is  to  make  himself  the 
atoner  for  the  collective  priesthood.  All  the 
high-priestly  ornaments  were  laid  aside,  and  he 
was  clothed  with  a  linen  coat  over  linen  drawers, 
and  girt  with  a  linen  girdle.  The  linen  cap 
completed  the  attire.  Even  this  enrobing  must 
be  preceded  by  a  religious  lustration"  (ver.  4)." 
[This  clothing  is  called  the  holy  garments, 
vers.  4  and  32 ;  and  it  is  separated  from  that  of 
the  common  priests  by  a  white  linen  girdle  in 
place  of  the  ordinary  priestly  girdle  wrought  in 
needle-work  with  "  blue  and  purple  and  scarlet" 
(Ex.  xxxix.  29).  The  high-priest  is  thus  to  lay 
aside  his  ''golden  garments"  of  authority,  and 
to  be  clad  in  pure  white  as  symbolical  of  holi- 
ness. This  symbolism  was  increased  by  his 
bathing  himself  before  putting  on  these  gar- 
ments, and  again  when  he  exchanged  them 
(ver.  24)  for  his  official  robes.  These  bathings 
were  not  the  mere  ordinary  bathings  of  the 
hands  and  feet,  but  of  the  whole  body. — F.  G.]. 

"  d.  Only  in  such  guise  can  he  receive  the 
means  of  atonement  for  the  congregation  in- 
volved with  him  in  guilt,  the  two  he-goats, 
which  in  the  more  general  sense,  are  appointed 
for  a  sin  offering.  In  the  presentation  of  the 
burnt  offering,  however,  the  congregation  was 
equalized  with  the  high-priest  himself.  But  how 
inconsiderable  is  the  he-goat  in  comparison  with 
the  young  bullock,  ver.  5."  [He  shall  take 
of  the  congregation. — Inasmuch  as  these 
sacrifices  were  for  the  people,  the  victims  were 
supplied  by  them,  as  the  former  ones  had  been 
by  Aaron.  The  fact  that  the  two  goats  together 
constitute  the  sin  offering  is  to  be  particularly 
noted.  The  high-priest's  sin  offering  was  a 
bullock,  as  provided  in  iv.  3,  and  the  ordinary 
sin  offering  for  the  whole  congregation  was  the 
same  (ib.  14) ;  here  it  is  changed  to  two  goats  to 
meet  the  particular  ritual  provided,  but  they 
together  constitute  a  single  sin  offering.  In  the 
same  way  two  birds  were  required  for  the  puri- 
fication of  the  leper  (xiv.  4),  or  to  "  make  atone- 
ment for  the  leprous  house  (ib.  53)  one  of  which 
was  set  free;  and  so  also  in  the  sin  offering  of 
the  poor  (v.  7),  two  doves  were  required  which 
were  differently  treated,  but  together  made  up  a 


single  sacrifice.  The  burnt  offering,  both  for 
the  high-priest  and  for  the  congregation,  was 
not  a  bullock,  but  an  inferior  victim  was  pre- 
scribed, probably  to  avoid  withdrawing  the  at- 
tention from  the  other  sacrifices,  and  thus  to 
bring  out  with  greater  force  the  significance  of 
the  whole  work  of  the  day  as  an  atonement  for 
sin.— F.  G.]. 

"e.  Now  follows  the  ordinance  for  the  atone- 
ment in  a  shorter  statement.  The  sin  offerings 
were  placed  together  before  the  sanctuary,  pre- 
sented before  the  Lord  ;  the  bullock  and  the 
two  he-goats  ;  since  the  guilt  is  indeed  different, 
but  yet  also  common."  [The  text,  however,  dis- 
tinctly separates  the  presentation  of  Aaron's 
bullock  (ver.  6)  from  that  of  the  he-goats  for  the 
people  (ver.  7);  and  this  is  in  accordance  with 
the  order  of  the  actual  sacrifice  which  follows.  It 
seems  also  necessary  to  the  idea  that  Aaron  must 
first  make  an  atonement  for  himself  and  for 
his  house  before  proceeding  to  offer  for  the 
people. — F.  G. ].  "But  now  the  mysterious  act 
was  performed :  the  lot  was  cast  over  the  two 
he-goats,  while  the  lot  of  the  one  was  called  for 
Jehovah,  that  of  the  other  for  Azazel.  On 
the  various  significations  of  this,  see  below. 
Meantime,  only  the  directions  which  belong  to 
both  are  spoken  of.      Vers.  9  and   10."   [0-10. 

The  nSy  used  in  vers.  9,  10  of  the  lots  refers  to 

T    T 

the  coming  up  of  the  lot  out  of  the  urn.  Keil. 
Aaron's  bullock  is  now  offered,  not  sacrificed,  for 
this  comes  afterwards,  ver.  11;  the  same  is  true 
also  of  the  other  sin  offerings.  According  to 
Jewish  tradition,  this  offering  was  accompanied 
by  the  high-priest's  making  a  solemn  confession 
of  sin,  the  form  of  which  is  given  in  Massecket 
Joma  c.  3,  \  8  (Patrick).  His  house  is  not  his 
immediate,  personal  family,  but  the  whole  order 
of  priests,  and  perhaps  it.  also  included  the  Le- 
vites  after  they  were  separated  from  the  congre- 
gation. —The  two  goats  of  ver.  7  were  to  be, 
according  to  Jewish  tradition,  of  the  same  size, 
color,  and  value,  and  as  nearly  alike  in  every 
way  as  possible.  Both  of  them  alike  Aaron  was 
directed  to  present  before  the  Lord,  but  the 
word  used  for  this  act  (TDJjri)  is  a  different  one 
from  that  used  of  Aaron's  offering  of  the  bullock 
(3'Tpn),  and  does  not  appear  to  be  used  in  a  sa- 
crificial sense.  The  lots  were  then  cast,  and  only 
the  one  upon  which  the  LORD'S  lot  fell 
was  Aaron  at  present  to  offer  (3"^pn)  for  a  sin 
offering  (ver.  8)  as  he  bad  already  done  with 
his  own  bullock ;  the  other,  on  which  the  lot 
fell  for  Azazel  was  to  be  presented  alive 

Cn-irjtT)  before  the  Lord  (ver.  10).    This  dif- 
_  T:T  \ 

ference  in  the  treatment  of  the  two  goats  from 
the  outset  is  too  important  to  be  overlooked  ;  but 
subsequently  the  other  was  also  offered  (ver.  20), 
and  it  is  expressly  said  that  Aaron  should  make 
an  atonement  with  him. — Thus  it  is  clear 
that  the  goat  for  Azazel,  while  forming  part  of 
the  one  sin  offering  and  used  for  the  purpose  of 
atonement,  was  yet  offered  to  the  Lord,  in  the 
sacrificial  sense,  separately  from  the  other. — 
F.  G.J. 

"/.  The  sacrificial  acts  follow  these  prepara- 
tions. Aaron  must  slay  the  sin  offering  of  the 
priesthood  in  the  court.     Then  he  first  brings  a 


126 


LEVITICUS. 


large  offering  of  incense  (both  bands  full  of 
sweet  incense)  into  the  holy  of  holies,  a  cloud 
of  the  fulness  of  prayer,  which  coTers  the  whole 
ttercy-seat,  as  this  covers  the  law,  the  evidence 
of  the  guilt  of  sin.     With   this  preparatory  en- 
trance only  is  made  possible  the   principal  en- 
trance for  fulfilling  the  priestly  atonement,  with- 
out Aaron's   dying  in  that  entrance.     Then  he 
comes  back,  brings  the  vessel  of  blood,  and  first 
sprinkles  with  his  finger  blood  upon  the  mercy- 
seat  on  its  front  side,  as  if  to  express  the  thought 
that  there  is  an  atonement  in  the  blood  ;  then  he 
sprinkles    before   the  Kaporeth"    [mercy-seat] 
"with  his  fingers  (plural)   seven  times,  as  if  to 
express  the  whole  historical  work  of  the  blood 
of  martyrdom  which  the  blood-sprinkling  of  the 
Kaporeth"     [mercy-seat]    "crowned."      [Vers. 
11-14.   It  is  important  to   the   understanding  of 
this  day  to  keep  the  order  of  its  rites  distinctly 
in  view.     They  have  been  clearly  stated  above: 
(1)  the   high-priest   slew   the    bullock    for    the 
priestly  sin   offering;   (2)   then   he   entered  the 
holy  of  holies  with  the  golden  censer  (comp.  Heb. 
ix.  4)   full  of  burning  incense;   (3)   taking  the 
blood  of  his  own  sin   offering,  he  again  entered 
the  holy  of  holies  and  sprinkled  the  blood,  first 
upon  the  front  side  of  the  mercy-seat,  and  then 
seven  times  before  it ;   (4)  he  again  came  out  to 
slay  the  goat  for  the  sin  offering  of  the  people 
(ver.  15). — F.  G.].   "Now  first  follows  the  atone- 
ment for  the  people.     Aaron  takes  the  vessel  of 
blood  of  the   people's  atonement,  and  performs 
the  two  sprinklings  in  the  holy  of  holies  as  be- 
fore. Here  also  the  distinction  is  made  upon  the 
mercy-seat  and  before  the  mercy-seat.  But 
as  Aaron  does  not  make  atonement  for  his  private 
guilt,  of  which  mention  was  made  in  chap,  iv., 
but  for  the  faults  in  his  sacrificial  service  itself, 
bo  is  it  also  with  the  atonement  for  the  people. 
For  their  private  sins  they  have  brought  their 
sacrifices   during   the  course  of  the  year;    now 
they  have,  in  conned  ion  with  the  priesthood,  to 
atone   generally  for   the  subtle  sins  in  all  their 
atonements  and  offerings."      [Yet  it  would  give 
an  imperfect  view  of  the  purpose  of  the  great  day 
of  atonement  to  suppose  it  restricted  simply  to 
atoning  for  defects  in  the  various  sacrifices  of  the 
past  year,  nor  probably  does  Lange  mean  to  be 
so  understood.     It  was  rather  an  expression  of 
the  inherent  insufficiency  of  those  sacrifices;   an 
acknowledgment  that,  notwithstanding  all  those 
propitiations,  I  here  still  remained  an  alienation 
between  a  sinful  people  and  a  perfectly  holy  God. 
It  was  the  design   of  this  day  to   acknowledge 
this,  and   by  the   most   solemn    and    expressive 
types,  symbolically  to  remove  it;  yet  in  the  pro- 
vision for  its  annual  repetition,  its  own  insuffi- 
ciency to    this    end   stands  confessed,  and  with 
especial  clearness  it  points  forward  to  the  only 
true  remedy  in   Him   who  should  really  obtain 
the  victory  over  the  power  of  evil. — F.  G.]     "So 
first  atonement  was   made  for  the  sanctuary  of 
the   Temple"   [or  Tabernacle]    "in  the  holy  of 
holies  (which  indeed  had  itself  remained  unap- 
proachable for  sin  as  well  as  the  Binner),  and 
then   from  the   holy  of  holies  outward,  for  the 
tabernacle    of    congregation,     which    had 
been   particularly  exposed  to  defilement   in   the 
midst  of  the  impurities  of  the  people.     That  by 
the  tabernacle  of  congregation  is  meant  the 


court,  is  shown  by  the  command   that  no  one 
should  enter  it  while  he  accomplishes  the  atone- 
ment."     [On  the  other  hand,  Keil  understands 
"the  holy  place  of  the  tabernacle"   in  contra- 
distinction   to  the    "holy  of  holies,"  which    is 
called    throughout   this    chapter    simply    "  the 
holy."     So  also  Rosenmiiller  and  others.     And 
there  shall  be  no  man  in  the  tabernacle 
of  congregation — The  object  of  this  was  not 
to  guard  the  privacy  of  the  ceremony,  but  sim- 
ply because  all  were  regarded  as  defiled  and  to 
be  atoned  for,  and  every  thing  defiled  must  be 
excluded  during  the  process  of  atonement. — F.  G.] 
"  The  whole  religion  of  the  people  appears  as  in 
abeyance    while    the    high-priest    was   consum- 
mating  the   atonement.     And   fitly   were   these 
atoning   acts  so  named.     Alter  the  high-priest 
had  completed  the  atonement  in  the  holy  of  ho- 
lies, he  went  back  into  the  sanctuary,  and  there 
sprinkled   the    altar  of   incense.      Iu  a  manner 
entirely  analogous  to    the  sprinkling  upon   the 
mercy-seat,  he  first  sprinkled  the  horns  of  the 
altar  of  incense,  and  then  the  altar  itself  seven 
times."     [The  analogy  is  still  more  completely 
carried  out  by  the  change  of  words  in  the  Heb. 
put  it  (|JTJ)  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar. . . . 
he  shall  sprinkle  (Hiri)  of  the  blood  upon 
it. — F.  G.]     "Only  in  this  sprinkling,  the  blood 
of  the  bullock  is  joined  with  the  blood  of  the  he- 
goat,  as  indeed  the  prayers  of  both  priest  and 
people  rise  together  to  God,  and  in  like  manner 
also   their  faults   in  prayer.     It  is   remarkable 
that  the   act  of  sprinkling  in  the  court  (at  the 
altar  of  burnt  offering)  seems  to  follow  the  act 
of  sprinkling  in  the  holy  of  holies,  and  not  till 
then  the  sprinkling  of  the  altar  of  incense  in  the 
temple"    [tabernacle],    "which    is    here   called 
par  excellence  the  altar.     In   this  connection  the 
passage  Ex.  xxx.  10  is  worthy  of  note.     Accord- 
ingly the  atonement  for  this  altar  was  the  last 
act  of  sacrifice,  and  thereby  the  atonement  for 
the  theocratic  prayer  became  the  last  point  in  the 
atonement,  as  indeed  it  had  certainly  been  the 
basis  for  the  first."     [The  ceremonies  of  propi- 
tiation began  by  carrying  the  burning  incense, 
symbolizing  prayer,  within  the  vail;    then  the 
blood  was  sprinkled  upon  the  instruments  of  pro- 
pitiation, the  mercy-seat  and  the  brazen  altar, 
and  finally  upon  the  altar  of  incense  itself  which 
was  connected  with  the  symbolism  of  prayer. — 
F.  G.]     "This  ordinance  seems  to  be  connected 
with  the  thought  tnat  the  altar  of  incense  in  its 
relation  to  Jehovah  (the  altar  that  is  befora 
the  LORD)  was  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the 
holy  of  holies,  as  also  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
seems  to  understand.     After  all  this  comes  the 
treatment    of    the    living    he-goat,     designated 
for  Azazel.     This  goat  was  brought  into  the 
court.       Here  the  high-priest  must  lay  both  his 
hands  (his  hand  in  the  singular  was  said  of  the 
offerer  i.  4:   iii.  2;  iv.  4;   iv.  24)   upon  the  head 
of   the    goat   and  confess  upon  it  all    the    mis- 
deeds (nj'lJT)  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  all 
their  breaches  of  allegiance  (deadly  sins,  crimes) 
'O'H'F'dn),  which  belong  to  all  their  sins,  which 
are  not  included  either   in  the  sins  to  be  atoned 
for,    or    which   have   already    been    atoned    for 

(DrWi3n-737),  and  shall  lay  these  upon  the  head 


CHAP.  XVI.  1-34. 


127 


of  the  goat,  and  shall  send  it  away  (hunt  it 
away)  into  the  wilderness  by  means  of  a  man 
who  stood  ready  for  that  purpose  (therefore  in- 
stantly). The  object,  however,  is  that  the  he- 
goat  shall  bear  away  all  the  sins,  as  if  they  had 
been  laid  upon  him,  into  a  desolate  place.  So 
shall  he  send  him  away  into  the  wilderness,  pro- 
perly speaking,  into  a  complete  solitude,  into  a 
bare  place  in  the  midst  of  the  wilderness,  to  the 
most  desolate  spot.  So  fearful  indeed  is  the 
burden  of  guilt  of  this  beast,  that  the  man  who 
has  driven  away  the  goat  must  first,  outside  the 
camp,  wash  his  clothes  and  bathe  himself  before 
he  may  come  hack  again  into  the  camp.  This  is 
the  contagious  power  of  the  deadly  Bins.  It  is 
to  be  considered  that  sins  done  with  uplift'd  hand 
could  not  be  removed  by  Levitical  sacrifice." 

"  But  further,  they  could  not  all  be  discovered 
and  blotted  out  by  the  penalty  of  death,  the  Che- 
rem.  Thus  there  remained,  after  all  the  atone- 
ments and  penalties,  an  unatoned  and  unpar- 
donable residue,  the  hidden  guilt  of  Israel,  which 
crept  on  in  darkness  through  its  history  until 
the  crucifixion  of  Christ  (Rom.  iii.  2-i).  From 
this  the  congregation  of  Israel  could  only  be 
freed  by  a  symbolical  act,  in  which  they  hunted 
away  this  burden  of  guilt  with  the  sin-goat  of 
double  power,  to  him  to  whom  this  guilt  be- 
longed, to  the  Azazel  in  the  wilderness.  That 
the  solitude  inside  the  pasturage  of  the  wilder- 
ness was  considered  as  a  region  of  evil  spirits  is 
plain  from  passages  of  the  Old  and  New  T 
ments  (Isa.  xiii.  21 ;  xxxiv.  14  ;  Matt.  xii.  43  s".) ; 
that  further,  the  dismissing  of  the  unpardonable 
eins  could  be  considered  as  a  giving  over  of  the 
sinner,  with  his  sin,  to  its  author,  is  shown  by 
the  act  of  excommunication  of  Paul  (1  Cor.  v.  5). 
and  that  the  idea  or  conception  of  a  diabolical 
opposing  spirit  was  handed,  down  from  patriar- 
chal times,  is  plain,  backwards,  from  Gen.  iii., 
and  forwards,  from  the  position  of  Satan  in  Job, 
and  other  places.  The  name  Azazel  corresponds 
throughout    to   this    conception.      'Whether  the 

7iNi>'  be  derived  from   711*,  it  means  (from  the 
..  T~.  _^T'  v 

verb  in  Pihel)  the  one  that  is  always  hiding,  se- 
parating himself;  or  from  SiX,  the  one  that 
is  always  removing  himself,  the  escaping 
one,  the  old  one  every  where  and  nowhere; 
and  one  can  only  say  simply  that  the  va- 
rious explanations  which  are  most  divergent 
from  this  conception  are  only  to  be  accounted  for 
from  the  want  of  understanding  the  undoubtedly 
very  obscure  and  solemn  idea  of  the  text.  Thus 
Enobel  finds  himself  authorized  by  the  text  and 
the  grammar  to  explain  "our  author  considered 
Azazel  as  an  evil  being  in  the  wilderness."  To 
be  sure,  it  is  his  purpose  to  assert  iu  this  con- 
nection that  the  devil  does  not  appear  in  the  old 
Hebrew  books,  and  was  not  a  dweller  in  the 
wilderness.  [Similarly  Kalisch  argues,  upon 
the  same  grounds,  that  this  book  must  be  later 
than  the  time  of  Zechariah  !" — F.  G.]  That  the 
teaching  concerning  the  devil  has  only  been 
gradually  developed  from  the  obscurest  forms ; 
that  the  devil  appears  in  Scripture  in  connection 
wiih  subordinate  demons;  that  further,  he  is 
described  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  dweller  in 


the  wilderness;*  that  finally,  the  conception  of 
natural  or  spectral  "  Desert  fiends"  would  be  a 
dualistic  one,  contravening  the  spirit  of  the  Old 
Testament — all  this  is  overlooked  in  his  skilfully 
prepared  antithesis.  But  when  Merx,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  interpretation  of  the  passage  of  Sa- 
tan, declares  that  the  Old  Testament  conscious- 
lie-?  is  never  dualistic,  he  has  not  learned  to 
distinguish  dualism  from  the  biblical  teaching  in 
regird  to  Satan  ;  and,  as  regards  the  further  ex- 
position, that  the  idea  of  Satan  was  foreign  to 
the  Old  Testament,  it  is  a  pure  assumptiou,  with 
which  he  sets  himself  in  opposition  to  the  best 
recognized  passages.  The  lately  advanced  pro- 
position, "  this  thought  does  not  appear  any 
where  else  in  Scripture,"  denies  the  conception 
of  «Tof  feydfieva,  and  can  only  he  described  as 
ha  I  Herrueneutics,  without  mentioning  that  we 
have  here  nothing  to  do  with  a  a-a;  feydpevov. 
Into  what  adventurousness  Exegesis  was  brought 
when  it  passed  to  the  thought,  that  the  abso- 
lutely or  relatively  (for  the  Old  Testament  eco- 
nomy) inexpiable  sins  were  given  over  to  the 
kingdom  of  darkness  for  earlier  or  later  judg- 
ment, is  shown  by  the  interpretations  that  are 
given: — Azazel  signifies  a  locality  in  the  wilder- 
ness; a  desolate  place  ;  a  mountain  (while  it  is 
forgotten  that  the  people  journeyed  from  station 
to  station) ;   or  the  buck  goat  itself  (from  ij£  and 

71^',  caper  emissarius,  "the  scapegoat"  [der  ledige 
Bockf)  according  to  Luther)  ;  or  Azazel  is  a  de- 
mon, to  whom  this  goat  is  brought  as  a  sacrifice; 
or  the  word  is  an  abstraction,  and  signifies  the 
whole  sending  away,  like  the  characteristic  hesi- 
tation of  the  LXX.  between  azo-ou-ij  and  a~o- 

/  if,  in  which  two  different  expositions  are 
brought  out."  [In  regard  to  the  meaning  of 
Azazel :  in  the  great  variety  of  etymologies  given 
for  the  word  by  scholars  of  the  highest  standing, 
it  may  be  assumed  as  certaiu  that  nothing  can 
be  positively  determined  by  the  etymology.  See 
the  Lexicons  and  Bochart,  ITicroz.  I.,  lib.  II.  c. 
51  (Tom.  I.,  p.  74o  seq.  ed.  Rosen.);  Spencer,  de 
leg.  L.  III.  Diss.  8,  Sect.  2  (p.  1011  s.  ed.  Tu- 
bing.). Not  only  the  roots  themselves  are  va- 
ried, but  their  signification  also,  and  still  further 
the  signification  of  the  compound.  Little  light 
can  be  had  from  the  Ancient  Versions.  The 
Sara.,  and  the  Targs.  of  Ouk.,  Jon.,  and  Jerus., 
retain  the  word  unchanged  ;  so  also  does  the 
Syriac,  but  in  Walton's  Polyglott  this  is  paren- 
thetically translated  Deus  fortissimus,  for  which, 
however,  there  seems  to  be  no  more  authority 
than  in  the  Hebrew;  the  Vulg.  has  caprus  i 
sarins ;  the  LXX.  renders  in  ver.  8,  ru  i-n-o/i- 
-aiu  (which  Josephus  also  uses),   in  ver.  10  fie 

irojroy  -     .   in  ver.   26  tuv  x'l'apov  -bv  Siea- 
Ta?ifiivov    elc    aipeaiv ;    Symm.    a7repx6p£voc ;     Aq. 


*  [This  statement  is  probably  founded  upon  two  facta — 
li  -t.  that  uf  our  Lord's  bavins  been  lid  into  the  wilderness 
'•  to  !"■  tempte  1  of  the  Devil;"  but  this  does  not  imply  til  a 
Me-  Iievil  is  in  any  especial  sense  a  dweller  in  the  wilder- 
ness, inn  only  that  this  was  a  favorable  situation  for  him  to 
ply  his  temptations ;  and  second,  that  certain  men  possessed 
of  evil  spirits  sought  solitary  places,  oilier  passages  of  the 
N.  T.  certainly  present  the  Devil  as  eminently  cosmopolitan. 
—  F.  <i. 

t  "Killer  indeed  thinks,  that  the  scape-goat  (der  ledige 
Bock)  signifies  that  the  people  are  set  tree  by  the  expiation; 
only  since  they  could  not  have  let  it  run  free  in  Jerusalem, 
they  sent  it  into  the  wild'  rnesal" 


128 


LEVITICUS. 


a7To?tcAv/ihoc  (or,  according  to  Theodoret,  awo- 
/iv//m'i>c;  Theod.  afiifievoc.  All  these  versions, 
it  will  be  observed,  either  retain  the  word  un- 
changed, or  else  refer  it  to  the  goat  itself  in  the 
general  sense  of  Luther,  and  the  A.  V.  scape-goat. 
The  old  Italic,  too,  has  ad  dimissionem.  The  Jewish 
authorities  differ,  R.  Saadias  Gaou  being  quoted 
by  Spencer,  and  Kimchi  by  Minister  and  others 
for  the  interpretation  rough  mountain  of  God, 
but  many  of  them  explaining  the  word  of  the 
Devil.  Of  the  Christian  Fathers,  Origen  [contra 
Cels.  6),  and  a  Christian  poet  cited  by  Epiphauius 
(Hieres.  xxxiv.)  from  Irenasus,  identify  Azazel 
with  the  Devil;  on  the  other  hand,  Theodoret 
(Qu.  xxii.  in  Lev.)  and  Cyril  [Glaph.)  concur 
with  the  interpretation  of  Jerome.  Suidas  and 
Hesychius  make  the  LXX.  enrono/iiTr/ — cnroTpcm!] — - 
averruncus,  the  averter  of  evil.  (See  Suicer  Then. 
S.  V.  airoTTfrrralog.)  The  great  majority  of  modern 
commentators  agree  with  Spencer  and  Rosen- 
miiller  in  interpreting  the  word  itself  of  the 
Devil,  although  B'ahr,  Winer,  and  Tholuck  con- 
tend for  the  sense  complete  removal.  The  Book 
of  Enoch,  so  called,  uses  the  name,  or  one  so  like 
it  as  to  be  evidently  meant  for  the  same,  several 
times  (viii.  1;  x.  12;  xiii.  1),  in  a  way  that 
shows  the  author  understood  by  it  the  Devil; 
but  this  book,  being  an  apocryphal  composition, 
probably  of  the  second  century,  (see  Excursus 
II.  in  my  com.  on  S.  Jude),  can  add  nothing  to 
the  authorities  already  cited.  The  writers  who 
adopt  this  sense  differ  very  widely  in  regard  to 
the  object  of  the  goat  for  Azazel,  some  consider- 
ing him  as  a  sacrifice  to  appease  the  evil  spirit, 
others  as  sent  "  to  deride  and  triumph  over  him 
in  his  own  dominion,"  and  others  as  simply 
"  sent  away  to  him  as  to  one  banished  from  the 
realm  of  grace."  (Clark.)  See  the  dissertations, 
among  others,  by  Spencer  and  one  by  Heugsten- 
berg  in  his  Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses. 

In  this  great  variety  of  interpretation  of  the 
word  and  of  the  meaning  of  the  ritual,  we  are 
fairly  remanded  to  the  text  itself  with  ihe  con- 
viction that  nothing  is  certain  except  what  is 
positively  stated  there.  These  points  at  least, 
are  clear:  (1)  the  two  goats  together  constitute 
one  sin  offering,  ver  5;  and  also  in  ver.  10,  the 
goat  for  Azazel  is  expressly  said  to  be  presented 
before  the  LORD  to  make  an  atonement 

with  him.     VI))  ^3D7  according  to  invariable 

usage,  denotes  the  object  of  the  expiation;  "to 
expiate  it,  i.  e.,  to  make  it  the  object  of  expiation, 
or  make  expiation  with  it."  Keil.)  Neverthe- 
less a  distinction  is  observed  in  the  text  in  the 
purpose  of  the  expiation  effected  by  each  of  the 
goats.  The  blood  of  the  one  that  was  slain  is 
used  only  for  making  atonement  for  the  holy 
places,  vers.  15-19 ;  after  this  it  is  expressly 
said,  and  when  he  hath  made  an  end  of 
making  atonement  for  the  holy  place, 
etc.  The  expiation  for  these  was  then  finished, 
and  as  yet  no  expiation  had  been  made  for  the 
sins  of  the  people.  Then  follows,  he  shall 
bring  the  live  goat,  and  on  his  head  the  high- 
priest  lays  the  sins  of  the  people  to  be  borne 
away.  The  two  goats  then  constitute  one  sin 
offering,  but  one  is  used  to  expiate  the  holy 
places,  the  other  to  bear  away  the  sins  of  the 
people.     (2)  The  two  goats  were  not  offered  to- 


gether in  the  sacrificial  sense,  but  only  caused 
to  stand  before  the  Lord  for  the  purpose  of  cast- 
ing lots,  ver.  7 ;  afterwards  the  goat  for  sacri- 
fice was  offered  (ver.  9)  by  himself,  and  the  goat 
for  Azazel  (ver.  20J  was  offered  by  himself.  (8) 
The  lot  was  cast  by  Aaron  as  the  officiating  high- 
priest,  and  was  plainly  intended  to  place  the 
choice  of  the  goats  entirely  in  the  hands  of 
the  Lord  Himself.  (4)  The  preposition  used  is 
precisely  the  same  in  regard  to  both  the  goats: 

for  (7)  the  Lord,  for  Azazel ;  in  view  of  this  it 

is  impossible  to  understand  Azazel  as  in  any  way 
designating  the  goat  itself,  so  that  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  LXX.  Vulg.  and  A.  V.  is  untenable 
as  a  literal  translation,  although  as  a  paraphrase, 
it  very  well  expresses  the  sense.  On  the  other 
hand,  this  by  no  means  implies,  as  so  often 
assumed,  that  Azazel  must  be  a  personal  being. 
It  would  be  perfectly  consonant  to  the  usage  of 
language  that  one  goat  should  be  for  the  Lord, 
and  the  other  for  anything,  or  place,  or  "  ab- 
straction;" for  the  knife,  for  the  wilderness,  for 
the  bearing  away  of  sin.  (5)  The  word  Azazel 
is  elsewhere  unknown  to  the  Scriptures,  and 
there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that,  except  as 
taken  from  this  passage,  it  ever  was  a  word 
known  to  any  language.  (6)  Finally  it.  is  to  be 
borne  in  mind  that  this  is  not  the  only  case  in 
which  two  victims,  treated  with  different  ritual, 
constituted  together  a  single  sin  offering.  The 
same  thing  occurred  in  the  two  birds  of  the  sin 
offering  of  the  poor  (v.  7-10),  of  which  one 
was  treated  according  to  the  ritual  of  the  sin 
offering,  and  the  other  according  to  that  of  the 
burnt  offering,  yet  both  together  constituted  the 
sin  offering.  Another  analogy  is  in  the  two  birds 
for  the  purification  of  the  leprous  man  or  house, 
one  killed,  the  other  set  free.  These  last,  how- 
ever, were  not  a  sacrifice. 

In  view  of  these  facts  why  may  it  not  be  sup- 
posed that  the  word  Azazel  was  somewhat  vague 
and  indeterminate  in  its  signification  to  the 
ancient  Israelites  themselves,  just  as  Redemption 
is  to  the  Christian?  So  far  as  our  sinful  condi- 
tion is  concerned,  nothing  can  be  plainer  or  more 
vitally  important;  but  when  the  question  is 
asked,  "  To  whom  is  this  redemption  paid?"  no 
certain  and  satisfactory  answer  has  been,  or  can 
be  given.  May  it  not  have  been  in  the  same 
way  with  this  word  to  the  Israelites?  That 
their  sins  were  borne  away  was  most  clearly 
taught;  but  looking  upon  these  sins  as  concrete 
realities,  the  question  might  arise,  "Whither 
were  they  carried?"  The  answer  is  in  the  first 
place  to  the  wilderness,  "  to  the  place  of  banish- 
ment from  God;"  and  then  further  to  Azazel. 
It  was  not  necessary  that  the  word  should  be 
clearly  understood ;  in  fact  the  more  vague  its 
meaning,  the  more  perfect  tile  symbolism.  The 
typical  system  could  not  explain  further.  The 
main  point  is  well  brought  out  in  the  translations 
of  the  LXX..  the  Vulg.  and  the  A.  V.,  After  every 
other  part  of  the  atonement  for  the  holy  places 
had  been  completed  (ver.  20)  this  goat  was  ap- 
pointed for  the  symbolic  bearing  away  of  the 
sins  of  the  people,  first  into  the  wildtrness,  a 
wide,  indefinite  place,  and  then  further  to  Azazel, 
a  wide,  indefinite  word.  All  this  very  emphati- 
cally symbolized  to  the  people  the  utter  removal 


CHAP.  XVI.  1-34. 


129 


of  the  burden  of  their  Fins,  without  attempt- 
ing to  define  precisely  what  became  of  them. 
The  only  danger  that  could  be  supposed  of 
similar  vagueness  entered  into  the  New  Testa- 
ment account  of  the  great  Sacrifice  for  sins,  to  set 
at  rest  the  endless  theories  which  aim  in  vain 
at  explaining  the  modus  operandi  of  the  Divine 
atonement — except  that  whatever  that  term  had 
been,  learning  and  ability  would  have  been 
hopelessly  devoted  to  ascertain  its  meaning, 
as  has  already  been  the  case  with  Azazel. 
— F.  G.] 

"After  the  atoning  sacrifice  was  completed  in 
the  way  described,  Aaron  must  prepare  to  pre- 
sent the  burnt  offering.  It  is  very  significant 
that  he  had  to  lay  aside  in  the  court  the  linen 
garments,  the  garments  of  expiation,  and  bathe 
his  flesh  with  water,  and  then  only,  in  his  own 
high-priestly  robes,  present  his  burnt  offering 
and  that  of  the  people,  a  ram  for  himself,  and  a 
ram  for  the  people.  Moreover,  when  it  is  said, 
he  shall  both  make  an  atonement  for  him- 
self, and  for  the  people  (ver.  24),  it  is  cer- 
tainly implied  in  the  expression  that  the  typi- 
cal burnt  offering  signified  only  a  typical  Interim 
for  the  real  Burnt  offering  (Rom.  xii.  1),  pro- 
vided the  expression  is  not  to  be  considered  as  a 
final  recapitulation.  The  contrast  between  the 
he-goat  which  had  been  slain  as  a  sin  offering  to 
Jehovah,  and  the  goat  of  the  Azazel  is  also  ex- 
pressed in  this:  that  the  fat  of  the  first  came 
upon  the  altar  with  the  burnt  offering,  while 
even  the  man  who  drove  away  the  Azazel  goat 
had  to  undergo  a  lustration."  [Aaron's  bathing 
himself  (ver.  24)  seems  also  to  be  connected 
with  his  having  symbolically  laid  the  sins  of 
the  people  upon  the  head  of  the  goat.  The 
same  lustration  was  also  required  of  him  who 
burnt  the  flesh  of  the  other  goat  and  of 
the  bullock  without  the  camp  (ver.  28),  as  is 
noticed  by  Lange  below.  The  object  of  these 
requirements  is  evidently  to  express  by  every 
possible  symbolism  the  defiling  nature  of  sin. 
In  ver.  27  the  word  for  burning  is  iPtf,  which 
as  noted  under  iv.  12,  is  never  used  of  sacrificial 
burning. — F.  G.]  "  The  sin  offerings  indeed, 
the  bullock  and  the  goat,  in  their  remainder  of 
skin,  flesh  and  bones,  were  carried  without  the 
camp,  and  there  burned;  as  was  to  be  done  with 
the  sin  offerings  of  the  high-priest  and  of  the 
congregation  according  to  ch.  iv.  1-21,  as  if 
these  pieces  were  considered  a  Cherem."  [The 
law  required  that  the  flesh  of  all  sin  offerings 
whose  blood  was  brought  within  the  sanctuary, 
should  be  burned  without  the  camp.  See  on  x. 
18. — F.  G.]  "But  it  has  certainly  this  mean- 
ing: that  these  pieces  were  here  neutralized 
and  removed  with  a  becoming  reverence  for 
their  signification.  On  account  of  this  impor- 
tant idea,  the  fulfiller  of  this  work  was  also  sub- 
jected to  a  lustration,  ver.  28." 

"As  a  supplement,  partly  a  repetition,  it  is  now 
said,  that  tlie  children  of  Israel  shall  on  this 
(lay  afflict  their  souls;  that  this  law  shall  be  an 
everlasting  law;  the  day  a  great  Sabbath  on 
which  all  work  shall  be  stopped;  that  it  shall 
be  Israel's  atonement  from  all  their  sins  which 
the  high-priest  should  execute,  and  that  once  a 


year.  It  also  remains  not  unnoticed  that  the 
ordinance  in  regard  to  this  was  observed  at  that, 
time. 

"For  the  literature,  see  Keil,  p.  113,  14,"  etc. 
[Trans,  page  398.  See  also  the  authorities  in 
Smith's  Bib.  Vict.  art.  Atonement,  Day  of,  and 
in  Winer,  art.  YersohnungsUiy. — F.  G.] 

[Ver.  29.  In  the  seventh  month  of  the 
ecclesiastical  year,  which  according  to  Joscphus 
(I.  3,  (S  3),  was  the  first  of  the  civil  year.  The 
old  Hebrew  name  for  this  month  was  Ethanim, 
the  post-captivity  name  Tisri.  On  the  first  day 
of  this  month  was  appointed  the  Feast  of  Trum- 
pets (xxiii.  24),  celebrated  as  a  Sabbath  and  by 
"an  holy  convocation;"  on  the  teuth  was  the 
great  Day  of  Atonement,  provided  for  in  this 
chapter,  and  again  mentioned  xxiii.  26-32;  and 
on  the  fifteenth  day  began  the  feast  cf  taberna- 
cles, lasting  for  a  week  (xxiii.  33-43).  The 
deportment  required  of  the  people  on  the  Day 
of  Atonement  is  more  fully  expressed  in  ch. 
xxiii.  Here  it  is  simply  described  as  a  day  in 
which  ye  shall  afflict  your  souls,  i.  e.  devote 
yourselves  to  penitence  and  humiliation.  This 
would  of  course  include  fasting;  but  the  dis- 
tinctive word  for  fasting,  D-li*  or  D'llf,  so  com- 
mon afterwards,  does  not  occur  in  the  Penta- 
teuch or  Joshua.  It  was  further  provided  that 
the  people  should  do  no  work  at  all,  not 
merely  no  servile  work,  as  was  provided  for  on 
various  other  occasions,  but  absolutely  no  work. 
And  this  ordinance  was  extended  to  the  stran- 
ger that  sojourneth  among  you.  Various 
laws  were  made  obligatory  upon  the  stranger, 
as  the  observance  of  the  fourth  commandment, 
Ex.  xx.  10;  the  abstinence  from  blood,  Lev. 
xvii.  10  ;  certain  laws  of  sexual  purity,  xviii.  26 ; 
the  law  against  giving  of  one's  seed  to  Molech, 
xx.  2;  and  against  blasphemy,  xxiv.  16.  These 
were  all  laws  so  essential  to  the  Hebrew  theoc- 
racy that  every  one  who  came  within  the  sphere 
of  their  exercise  was  bound  to  respect  them. 
They  apply  to  every  one  staying  for  however 
long  or  short  a  time  within  the  bounds  of  Israel, 
and  it  is  a  mistake  to  restrict  them  (Clark)  to 
those  of  other  races  permanently  domiciled 
among  the  Israelites,  as  will  at  once  appear 
from  a  consideration  of  the  character  ofseveral 
of  these  laws.  Ver.  34.  He  did  as  the  LORD 
commanded  Moses,  i".  e.  in  announcing  the 
law.  Perhaps  also  the  expression  may  include 
the  observance  of  the  day  when  the  time  came 
round  which  could  only  have  been  several 
months  later,  the  Israelites  having  departed 
from  Mount  Sinai  on  the  twentieth  day  of  the 
second  month  (Num.  x.  11),  while  all  the  legis- 
lation in  Leviticus  was  given  during  their  so- 
journ there  (ch.  xxvi.  46;  xxvii.  34). — F.  G.] 


DOCTRINAL   AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  The  vail  shutting  out  the  Holy  of  Holies 
set  forth,  in  speaking  symbol,  the  unapproacha- 
bleness  and  unknowableness  of  God.  Even  the 
high  priest,  entering  once  in  the  year,  must 
obscure  his  view  in  the  vety  cloud  of  incense 
with    which    he   approached.     The    same    truth 


130 


LEVITICUS. 


was  more  feebly  taught  iu  the  arrangements  of 
the  heathen  temples,  and  was  set.  forth  in  the 
speculations  of  heathen  philosophy.  In  the 
Jewish  Scriptures  it  is  declared  with  the  utmost 
emphasis  and  clearness.  In  the  New  Testament 
too,  we  are  taught  that  He  can  be  revealed  to 
man  only  by  Him  who  is  both  God  and  man. 
Thus  the  latest  conclusion  of  modern  philosophy, 
that  behind  all  that  can  be  discovered  of  nature 
there  is  an  "  Unknowable,"  a  "power  inscruta- 
ble to  the  human  intellect"  is  taught  in  Scrip- 
ture from  beginning  to  end.  Even  when  the 
vail  was  rent  asunder  at  the  crucifixion  of  Christ, 
and  a  new  and  living  way  was  consecrated  for 
us  into  the  holy  of  holies,  it  became  a  way  to 
the  knowledge  and  apprehension  of  God  rather 
practically  and  spiritually  than  intellectually. 
The  finite  and  the  Infinite  can  meet  only  in  Him 
who  is  both. 

II.  The  high-priest  was  warned  to  enter  within 
the  vail  only  in  the  way  and  at  the  time  pre- 
scribed, lest  he  die.  His  official  and  symbolic 
holiness  did  not  make  him  personally  holy,  so 
that  he  could  bear  to  enter  as  he  pleased  the 
presence  of  the  holy  God,  but  only  covered  his 
official  service.  This  was  not  prevented  or  ren- 
dered unavailing  by  his  own  personal  unworthi- 
ness.  So  here  is  taught  the  great  principle  that 
"the  unworthiness  of  ministers  hinders  not  the 
effect  of  the  sacraments;"  that  the  grace  of 
God  accompanies  the  acts  of  those  whom  He  hag 
appointed  in  that  which  He  has  given  them  to 
do,  alihough  this  treasure  be  placed  "in  earthen 
vessels." 

III.  The  dress  of  Aaron  when  he  passed  within 
the  vail  was  evidently  significant.  Ordinarily, 
when  he  ministered  as  high-priest  and  in  the 
presence  of  the  people,  his  robes  were  of  the 
utmost,  splendor,  symbolizing  his  high  office  as 
the  typical  mediator  between  God  and  the  con- 
gregation; but  now  in  the  highest  act  of  that 
mediation,  when  alone  before  God,  these  are  to 
be  laid  aside,  and  the  whole  purpose  of  the  dress 
is  to  symbolize  that  perfect  purity  with  which 
only  he  may  enter  the  presence  of  the  imme- 
diate dwelling-place  of  God. 

IV.  In  Aaron's  first  offering  of  a  sin  offering 
for  himself  is  very  strongly  set,  forth  the  imper- 
fection of  the  Levitical  law.  The  one  on  whose 
mediation  the  people  must  depend  for  forgive- 
ness must  yet  first  make  propitiation  for  him- 
self. And  in  the  provision  for  the  annual  repe- 
tion  of  this  day,  its  insufficiency  is  apparent, 
see  Heb.  x.  1-3.  Here  then  again,  as  so  con- 
stantly in  every  part  of  its  provisions,  the  law 
of  sacrifice  proclaims  itself  as  but  a  temporary 
institution  until  that  which  is  perfect  should 
come. 

V.  By  the  goat  for  Azazel  again,  the  same 
thing  is  taught.  "It  is  not  possible  that  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away 
sins  "  (Heb.  x.  4) ;  therefore  after  all  symbolism 
had  been  exhausted  in  the  sacrifice  of  bulls  and 
of  goats,  the  sins  were  yet  laid  upon  the  head 
of  the  goat  for  Azazel,  and  sent  away  into  t lie 
wilderness.  The  eins  thus  sent  away  are  not  to 
he  looked  upon  as  different  sins  from  those  for 
which  propitiation  was  offered,  nor  as  a  residue 
of  these  unatoned  for;  but  as  the  same  sins,  as 
all  the  sins  of  the  children  of  Israel  (ver.  21). 


Atonements  had  been  made  for  these  through- 
out the  year ;  a  further  and  higher  atonement 
had  at  this  moment  been  made  ;  but  that  all 
these  were  inherently  ineffectual  was  now  shown 
by  the  goat  for  Azazel. 

VI.  The  Christian  Fathers,  with  that  instinct 
which  often  seizes  upon  a  truth  without  recog- 
nizing accurately  the  process  by  which  it  is 
reached,  generally  considered  the  goat,  for  Aza- 
zel as  a  type  of  Christ,  some  of  them  in  one 
way,  some  in  another.  Cyril  thought  him  a 
type  of  the  risen  Christ,  ami  the  wilderness  to 
which  he  was  sent,  a  type  of  heaven.  Theodoret 
makes  him  a  type  of  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ, 
which  was  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  His 
atonement,  and  yet  incapable  of  Buffering.  The 
type  seems  really  to  consist  in  this:  that  the 
sins  for  which  all  the  Levitical  sacrifices  were 
unable  really  to  atone,  were  symbolically  borne 
away  by  the  goat;  even  as  our  iniquities  are 
truly  laid  upon  Christ,  and  He  has  borne  them 
away.  Isa.  liii.  4-6. 

VII.  The  incense  formed  a  prominent  and 
essential  part  of  the  ritual  of  the  day  of  atone- 
ment. This  is  not  to  be  forgotten  in  its  relation 
to  the  antitype.  It  is  not  on  Christ's  sacrifice 
alone  that  we  depend  for  the  forgiveness  of  our 
sins,  but  upon  His  intercession  also. 

VIII.  On  the  day  of  atonement  no  work  what- 
ever was  to  be  done:  the  propitiation  for  sin 
was  not  only  the  paramount  duty,  taking  the 
place  of  everything  that  interfered  with  it;  but 
it  was  to  be  all-absorbing.  The  people  had  no 
duties  to  perform  directly  in  connection  with 
the  service  of  atonement;  but  still  they  must  do 
no  work.  The  propitiation  for  sin  must  be  the 
one  thing  on  that  day  done  in  all  the  camp  of 
Israel;  and  meanwhile  the  whole  congregation 
were  to  "  afflict  their  souls."  Though  the  pro- 
pitiation of  sins  be  wrought  for  us,  and  not  by 
us,  yet  must  it  bring  to  us  the  lowliness  and 
humiliation  of  repentance. 

IX.  Aaron  was  to  make  an  atonement  (ver.  20) 
for  the  holy  of  holies,  for  the  tabernacle,  and  for 
the  altar;  but  these  had  already  heen  sanctified 
at  their  first  consecration,  and  the  atonement 
now  made  must  be  perpetually  repealed  year 
by  year.  It  is  plain  from  this  that  there  was  no 
effective  remedy  for  the  inherent  weakness  and 
sinfulness  of  man,  which  contaminated  even  his 
most  holy  things,  until  the  coming  of  that  Son 
of  man  who  should  be  without  sin.  The  high- 
priest  entered  the  holy  of  holies,  and  thus  ap- 
proached the  symbolic  dwelling-place  of  God; 
but  he  did  not  thereby  open  the  way  to  others, 
or  even  to  himself  except  for  this  same  typical 
entrance,  "the  Holy  Ghost  this  signifying,  that 
the  way  into  the  Holiest  of  all  was  not  yet  made 
manifest"  (Heb.  ix.  8);  the  only  atonement 
which  could  really  open  the  way  for  man  to 
heaven  itself  must  be  offered  before  the  throne 
of  Jehovah  by  Him  who  alone  could  offer  an  all- 
sufficent  sacrifice  for  the  sin  of  the  world. 

X.  "The  rites  were  not  in  any  proper  sense 
supplemental,  but  were  a  solemn  gathering  up, 
as  it  were,  of  all  other  rites  of  atonement,  so  as 
to  make  them  point  more  expressively  lo  the  reve- 
lation to  come  of  God's  gracious  purpose  to  man, 
in  sending  His  Son  to  be  delivered  for  our 
offences,  and  to  rise  again  for  our  justification 


CHAP.  XVI.  1-34. 


131 


to  be  our  great  High  Priest  for  ever  after  the 
order  of  Melchisedec,  and  to  enter  for  us  within 
the  vail  (llom.  iv.  25;  Heb.  vi.  20).  The  day 
of  atonement  expanded  the  meaning  of  every  sin 
offering,  in  the  same  way  as  the  services  for  Good 
Friday  and  Ash  Wednesday  expand  the  meaning 
of  our  Lilany  days  throughout  the  year,  and 
Easter  Day,  that  of  our  Sundays."   Clark. 

HOMILETICAL   AND    PRACTICAL. 

The  day  of  atonement   "forma  a  contrast  to 
the  defilement  of  the  sanctuary  by  the  sons  of 
Aaron,  their  rash  intrusion,  their  strange  fire, 
their  moral  death  and  fearful  destruction.     (Ch. 
xvi.  1).     It  depends — as  far  as  concerns  the  un- 
derstanding— upon  a  great  dread,  a  great  world- 
historic  preparation,  and  earnest  religious  pray- 
ers and  actions.     It  is  performed  for  the  whole 
people,  and  this  means  for  all  humanity.     But  it 
points   also,  by  its  several   particulars  out  from 
the  Old  Testament  and  into  the  New.     The  high- 
priest  is  not  yet  clean,  not  yet  the  righteous  ;   he 
must  first  offer  for  himself  (see  the   Ep.    to  the 
Heb.).     He  is  not  one  with  his  sacrifice  and  sa- 
crificial blood,  although   he  must  represent  the 
approximation   to   this   unity   in  the   disrobing 
himself  of  his  high-priestly  majesty.     But  even 
the  sin  offering  availed  only  for  sins  of  weakness 
(xxiv.  16;  .Num.  xv.  30),  and  not  for  sins  of  ma- 
lice, of  rebellion,  of  outrage   with  a  high   hand. 
These  were  everywhere,  when  they  were  disco- 
vered, punished  with  death.      But  since  all  were 
not  discovered,  a  deadly  sin  steals  through  the 
life  of  Israel,  and   accumulates — as   a  token  of 
which  the  goat  of  the  sin  offering  is  sent,  through 
the  goat,  of  the  Azazel,  into  the  wilderness  as  a 
curse  offering  to  the  author  of  the   demon-like 
Bin."      [The  same  application  may  be  made  of 
the  different  views  given  of  the  sins  borne  away 
by  the  goat,  and  of  Azazel  in  the  Exegetical. — 
F.  G.].     "Thus   the   law   lightens    the  darkest 
night-side  of  Israel  and  of  the  human  race.    But 
Christ    has   shown   the   chain  and   tradition  of 
these  secret  faults  in  His   denunciation,   Matt, 
xxiii.  30  ss.,  and  Paul  has  shown  (Rom.  iii.)  how 
Christ,   before    the   tribunal    of   God.    has   also 
atoned  for  these  hitherto  inexpiable  sins  (on  the 
distinction  between  ndpeotc  and   dcjeaic  see  Coc- 
ceius),  and  has  moreover  no  scruple  in  declaring 
that  Christ  also  has  become  a  curse  offering  for 
us  (Gal.  iii.  13)."      [The  Kardpa  of  Gal.   iii.   13 
may  well  be  compared  with  the  duapriav  i-xoincev 
of  2  Cor.  v.  21.     It  cannot  possibly  denote  that 
Christ  became  a  "  curse  offering"   in   the  sense 
which  Lange  attributes  to  the  Azazel-goat  (al- 
though something  approaching  even  this  view  of 
the  atonement  was  held  in  Christian   antiquity. 
SeeOxenham's  Cath.  doct.  of  the  Atonement,  2d  ed., 
pp.   114-124);   but  rather   means   that  he  took 
upon  Himself  the  curse  which  belonged  to  us. — 
F.  G.].     "  The  New  Testament  atonement  is  in- 
deed conditioned  on  faith  in  its  objective  appli- 
cation to  individual  men,  although  in  its  universal 
objective  force  it  is   absolutely  unconditioned.     Of 
itself  also,  the  shadowy  representative   of  this 
great  future  atonement  produced  in  Israel  a  calm, 


thankful,  and  festive  disposition,  the  foundation 
for  the  joyous  feast  of  Tabernacles.  The  Old 
Testament  sanctuary  itself,  in  all  its  parts  (ver. 
33),  was  again  expiated  and  cleansed,  in  a  typi- 
cal way,  by  this  atonement.  As  the  ground  for 
this  lies  the  thought :  that  without  such  purifi- 
cations from  time  to  time,  a  priestly  institution 
is  in  danger  of  sinking  into  the  deepest  and  most 
corrupting  corruption.  The  acts  for  sanctifying 
the  holy  people  extend  to  the  end  of  ch.  xvi.  ;  in 
ch.  xvii.  follow  the  sacred  observances."  Lange. 
The  congregation  of  Israel  were  wholly  ex- 
cluded from  even  the  typical  holy  of  holies,  yet 
were  they  required  to  be  holy;  when  on  one  day 
of  the  year  their  high-priest  passed  within  the 
vail,  they  must  •'afflict  their  souls"  aul  do  no 
manner  of  work;  but  for  us,  our  Great  High- 
Priest  has  passed  within  the  vail,  and  opened  a 
new  and  living  way  for  us  to  follow  ;  "  let  us 
then  draw  near  with  a  true  heart  "  (Heb.  x.  22). 
The  hope  of  thus  entering  the  true  holy  of  holies 
at  the  end  of  his  pilgrimage  brings  with  it  to  the 
Christian  a  closer  communion  with  God  on  his 
journey  thither;  for  that  is  not  reserved  for  the 
end,  but  in  spirit  even  now  he  has  "  bo'dness  to 
enter  into  the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus  "  (ib. 
19).  Only  all  depends  upon  ihe  Propitiation 
which  the  day  of  atonement  typified. 

The  fearful  contagion  of  sin  is  shown  by  the 
purification  of  those  who  had  to  do  with  the  pro- 
pitiation for  sin;  even  Aaron  must  bathe  him- 
self and  change  his  robes,  and  the  men  who  took 
charge  of  the  two  goats  of  the  sin  offering,  who 
led  into  the  wilderness  the  one  for  Azazel,  or 
burnt  the  flesh  of  the  one  slain  'n  sacrifice,  must 
wash  their  clothes  and  bathe  their  flosh  before 
they  could  return  to  the  camp.  Hereby  is  sha- 
dowed forth  the  exceeding  pollution  of  sin. 

The  sacrifices  of  this  day  were  performed  by 
the  high-priest  alone,  and  especially  when  he 
made  atonement  for  the  holy  places  no  man  might 
be  within  the  court.  "  Thus  the  high-priest  pre- 
figured Christ,  who  accomplished  the  work  of 
atonement  'alone,  and  of  the  people  there  was 
none  with  Him;  His  own  arm  brought  salvation' 
(Isa.  lxiii.  5)."   Wordsworth. 

The  holy  of  holies  was  never  entered  by  any- 
one except  at  this  time;  yet  (ver.  16)  atonement 
must  be  made  for  it  because  of  the  unclean- 
ness  of  the  children  of  Israel. — Upon  this 
Calvin  (in  ver.  10)  remarks,  "Moses  distinctly 
says  that  the  sanctuary  must  be  purified  not  from 
its  own  uncleannesses,  but  from  those  of  the 
children  of  Israel.  Now  the  reality  of  this  figure 
is  to  be  regarded  for  our  advantage.  God  ap- 
pears to  us  in  His  only  Begotten  Son  through 
baptism  and  the  holy  supper :  these  are  the 
pledges  of  our  sanctification  :  but  such  is  our 
corruption  that  we  do  not  cease,  as  far  as  in  us 
lies,  to  profane  these  instruments  of  the  Spirit, 
by  whioh  God  sanctifieth  us.  But  since  no  flocks 
may  be  slain,  it  beoomes  us  to  mourn,  and  ear- 
nestly to  pray  that  our  uncleanness,  by  which 
baptism  and  the  holy  supper  are  vitiated,  Christ 
may  wash  away  and  cleanse  by  the  sprinkling 
of  His  own  blood." 


132  LEVITICUS. 


book:  II. 
OF  CONTINUANCE  IN  COMMUNION  WITH  GOD. 

Chapters   XVII.— XXVI. 


"The  keeping  holy  of  the  consecrated  relations  of  the  life  of  Israel,  of  the  -whole 
round  of  sacrifice,  and  of  the  round  of  typical  holiness,  by  the  putting  aside 
of  the  sins  of  obduracy  (Cherem).     Chaps.  XVII. — XXVII." — Lange. 

PART  I.  HOLINESS  ON  THE  PART  OF  THE  PEOPLE. 

Chaps.  XVII.— XX. 


FIRST    SECTION. 

"  The  keeping  holy  of  all  animal  slaughter  as  the  basis  of  all  sacrifice,  of  the  Hood  as  the  soul  of  all  sacri- 
fice, and  of  animal  food  as  the  foundation  of  all  food,  of  all  feasting." — LANGE. 

Holiness    in    Regard    to    Food. 

Chapter  XVII.  1-16. 
1,  2       And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  Aaron,  and  unto  his 
sons,  and  unto  all  the  children  cf  Israel,  and  say  unto  them  :     This  is  the  thing 

3  which  the  Lord  hath  commanded,  saying,  What  man  soever  there  be  of  the  house 
of  Israel1  that  killeth  an  ox,  or  lamb  [sheep2],  or  goat,  in  the  camp,  or  that  killeth 

4  it  out  of  the  camp,  and  bringeth  it  not  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [om. 
the]  congregation,  to  offer  an  offering  unto  the  Lord  before  the  tabernacle  [the 
dwelling  place3]  of  the  Lord  ;*  blood  shall  be  imputed  unto  that  man;  he  hath 

5  shed  blood ;  and  that  man  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  people :  to  the  end  that 
the  children  of  Israel  may  bring  their  sacrifices,  which  they  offer  [sacrifice5]  in  the 
open  field,  even  that  they  may  bring  them  unto  the  Lord,  unto  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  [om.  the]  congregation,  unto  the  priest,  and  offer  them  for  peace 

6  offerings  unto  the  Lord.  And  the  priest  shall  sprinkle  the  blood  upon  the  altar 
of  the  Lord  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [om.  the]   congregation,  and  bum 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Yit.  ?,.  The  LXX.  hero,  as  in  the  text  in  vers.  8,  10,  inserts  the  clause  or  of  the  strangers  which  sojourn  among  you. 

■  Ver.  3.  Dii'3.    See  Textual  Note  6  on  iii.  7. 

8  Ver.  4.  \2r)r).  See  Textual  Note  8  on  xv.  31.  There  ia  especial  reason  for  a  change  in  the  rendering  here  as  the 
T*'l^   771X  haa  just  occurred  in  the  previous  clause. 

<  Tier"  I.  TIim  ver.  is  largely  interpolated  in  the  Sam.  and  LXX'.  "  to  offer  a  burnt  offering  or  a  peace  offering  [for  your 
atonement  Sam.  acceptable  unto  tl"-  Lord  f  ir  an  odor  of  a  Bwnet  savor.  And  whosoever  shall  kill  without,  and  shall  not 
bring  it  to  Hi.-  floor  >ftli"  tabernacle  of  testimony,  tint  he  may  offer  an  off  ring  to  the  Lord  before  the  tabernacle  of  the 
Lord;  blood  shall  be,"  efc.  The  purpose  of  this  interpolation  is  supposed  to  In-  to  bring  tins  passage  into  harmony  with 
Leut.  xii.  26  ;  Lint  the  difficulty,  if  any  can  be  considered  to  exist,  is  not  avoided  by  this  repetition. 

8  Ter.  6.  DTI3T    DD    Ti^X    DDTO!-    The  same  word  occurring  twice  in  the  same  clause  should  6urely  have  the 

same  translation.    n2T  'S  the  technical  word  for  killing  in  sacrifice,  and  although  in  the  later  books  it  is  rarely  used  for 

Slaughtering  in  the  more  general  sense,  it  is  never  applied  in  the  Pentateuch  to  anything  else  than  sacrifice.     See  prelimi- 
nary note  on  sacrifice.    It  cannot,  therefore  (with  Clark;  be  here  takeu  of  simply  slaughtering  for  food. 


CHAP.  XVII.  1-16.  133 


7  the  fat  for  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord.  And  they  shall  no  more  offer  [sacrifice*] 
their  sacrifices  unto  devils  [demons6],  after  whom  they  have  gone  a  whoring.  This 
shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  unto  them  throughout  their  generations. 

8  And  thou  shalt  say  unto  them,  Whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel, 
or  of  the  strangers  which  sojourn  among  you,  that  offereth  a  burnt  offering  or  sacri- 

9  fice,  and  bringeth  it  not  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  [pm.  the]  congregation 
to  offer  it  unto  the  Lord  ;  even  that  man  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  people. 

10  And  whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that  so- 
journ among  you,  that  eateth  any  manner  of  blood  ;  I  will  even  set  my  face  against 

11  that  soul  that  eateth  blood,  and  will  cut  him  off  from  among  his  people.  For  the 
life  [soul7]  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood :  and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar 
to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls  :  for  it  is  the  blood  that  maketh  an  atonement 

12  for  [by  means  of8]  the  soul.  Therefore  I  said  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  No  soul 
of  you  shall  eat  blood,  neither  shall  any  stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you  eat 
blood. 

13  And  whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the  children  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that 
sojourn  among  you,  which  hunteth  and  catcheth  any  beast8*  or  fowl  that  may  be 

14  eaten ;  he  shall  even  pour  out  the  blood  thereof,  and  cover  it  with  dust.  For  it  is 
the  life  [of  it  is  the  soul8]  of  all  flesh :  the  blood  of  it  is  for  the  life  [soul7]  thereof: 
therefore  I  said  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  Ye  shall  eat  the  blood  of  no  manner 
of  flesh:  for  the  life  [soul9]  of  all  flesh  is  the  blood  thereof:  whosoever  eateth  it 
shall  be  cut  off. 

15  And  every  soul  that  eateth  that  which  died  of  itself,  or  that  which  was  torn  with 
beasts,  whether  it  be  one  of  your  own  country,  or  a  stranger,  he  shall  both  wash  his 
clothes,  and  bathe  It  imself  in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even  :  then  shall  he 

16  be  clean.  But  if  he  wash  them  not,  nor  bathe  his  flesh ;  then  he  shall  bear  his 
iniquity. 

«  Ver.  7.  D"V#t?S  lit.  to  buck-goats-    See  Exeg.    The  A.  V.  has,  however,  undoubtedly  expressed  the  sense,  except 

that  here,  as  frequently  in  the  New  Testament  am!  sometimes  in  the  Old  (as  in  the  translation  of  the  same  word  ln2Cbron. 
xi.  15).  it  uses  the  plural  devils;  but  one  Sid3oAot  is  recognized  m  Scripture,  and  evil  spirits  in  the  plural  are  expressed  by 
&aifj.oves  or  Sai/iofta.    It  is  better  therefore  to  substitute  demons.    Vulg.  d&mones,  LXX.  jaarotoi.    Id  the  A.  V.  In  Isa      ii. 

■Jl  and  xxxiv.  14  it  is  rendered  Satyrs. 

1  Vers.  11  and  14.  C?33  is  here  equivalent  to  if  vxi  and  is  so  rendered  in  the  LXX.    In  English  the  Tift  of  the  A.  V. 

may  be  understood  in  the  same  way,  but  so  also  may  soul,  and  it  is  better  in  this  very  important  passage  to  keep  B  uniform 
rendering  of  tli>'  Heb.  word.  All  tiie  ancient  versions  retain  the  same  rendering  throughout, 60  do  several  modern  versions 
and  almost  all  recent  expositors. 

s  Ver.  11.  13D'    iyS33  =  maketh  an  atonement  by  means  of  the  soul.    "3  with  1£J3  has  only  a  local  or  instru- 
mental signification  (ch.  Vi.  23 ;  xvi. 17,27;  also  vii.7:  Ex.  xxix.  nri;  Num.  v.  8).    Accordingly,  It  was  not  the  bl I  as 

such,  but  the  blood  as  the  vehicle  of  the  soul,  which  possessed  expiatory  virtue."  Keil,  following  Knot"  1.  Similarlj  Bftbr, 
Kurtz,  and  others.    So  also  Von  Gerlach  and  Clark.    The  A.  V.  is  singularly  infelicitous  in  that  it  refers  the  final  !}'3J  to 

ul  of  man,  instead  of  to  the  soul  of  the  victim  ;  nevertheless,  it  follows  the  LXX.,  the  Targums,  and  the  Vulg.;  and 
so  also  Luther.   ^  Ver.  13.  See  note1  on  xi.  2. 

9  Ver.  14.  Comp.  ver.  11.     $23  occurs  three  times  in  this  verse,  each  time  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  life,  hut  the  uniform 

translation  soul  is  better.    In  the  expression  the  blood  of  it  is  the  soul  thereof,  "  ii?233  is  to  ho  taken  as  a 

]  itein  it;  in'  suing,  introduced  with  hnh  essential?.    It  is  only  as  so  understood  that  the  clause  supplies  a  res    m  al 

all  in  harmony  with  the  context."  Keil.  With  this  most  modern  commentators  coucur,  as  well  as  the  ancient  and  ret  al 
recent  versions. 


EXEGETICAL,   AXD    CRITICAL. 

The  whole  of  Lange's  "  Exegetical "  is  here 
given.  "  1.  With  our  chapter  begins  the  second 
half  of  the  Book  of  Leviticus.     The  hook  a9  a 


the  other  hand,  must  place  the  backsliding 
Israelite  under  the  law  of  purification,  which 
has  found  its  culmination  in  the  holiness  of 
Israel  through  the  great  sacrifice  of  atonement. 

"  How  much  this  organic  completeness  of  the 
whole  book  can  be  mistaken,  Knobel  shows  most 


whole  treats  of  the  priestly  presentation  of  the    remarkably  when  he  says:   '  The  section  has,  in 


typical  holiness  of  Israel,  of  the  people  of  the 
holy  Jehovah.  In  the  first  part,  ch.  i.-xvi.,  the 
various  forms  of  the  purification  or  sanctifica- 
tion  of  the  impure  and  unholy  people  are  set 
forth;   in  the  second  part,  from  ch.  xvii.  to  the 


ts  expression,  much  in  common  with  the  Elohist, 
but  yet  it  cannot  have  come  from  him,  since  («) 
he  would  have  attached  it  to  ch.  i.-vii.,  where  it 
fits  best(!);  or,  on  account  of  ver.  15,  at  least 
to  ch.   xi.-xv. ;    but    would    not  have   placed  it 


end,  the  various  ways  of  keeping  holy  the  people    here,    beyond    the    law    of  the    Day    of  Atoue- 


and  their  common  life  are  now  prescribed,  and 
that  too  by  the  punishment  of  Cherem,  as  far  as 
the  profanations  are  wittingly  committed  (with 
uplifted  hand).     Profanations  from  impulse_  on 


ment,  etc' 

[This  chapter,  like  all  the  Divine  communica- 
tions in  the  remainder  of  Leviticus,  is  addressed 
to  Mosos;  indeed   this   is   the  case  tlu-uujjnoiii, 


134 


LEVITICUS. 


the  whole  book,  except  when  Moses  and  Aaron 
are  addressed  together  in  regard  to  acts  which 
depended  upon  an  exercise  of  priestly  judgment, 
and  also  except  the  single  instance  (x.  8-11)  in 
which  the  prohibition  of  the  priestly  use  of 
strong  drink  is  addressed  to  Aaron  alone.  Still, 
several  of  these  communications  to  Moses  are  to 
be  immediately  communicated  by  him,  as  in  the 
present  chapter,  unto  Aaron,  and  unto 
his  sons,  and  unto  all  the  children  of 
Israel,  as  alike  binding  upon  them  all.  A  slight 
difference  in  the  arrangement  of  this  portion 
of  Leviticus  is  occasioned  by  treating  the  con- 
cluding chapter  (xxvii.)  as  an  appendix,  which 
seems  to  be  required  by  the  formula  of  conclu- 
sion at  the  end  of  ch.  xxvi.  The  other  ten  chap- 
ters are  arranged  as  follows:  xvii.-xx.,  holiness 
in  matters  which  concern  the  people  generally, 
the  last  chapter  (xx.)  being  occupied  chiefly 
with  the  punishments  for  the  violation  of  this 
holiness;  xxi.,  xxii.,  holiness  in  matters  con- 
cerning the  priests  and  offerings;  xxiii. — xxv., 
sanctification  of  the  various  feasts,  including 
also  that  of  the  holy  lamps  and  shew-bread 
(xxiv.  1-9),  and  a  short  historical  section  giving 
the  account  of  the  punishment  of  a  blasphemer 
(xxiv.  H 1—23) ;  xxvi.  forms  the  conclusion  of  the 
whole  book,  consisting  of  promises  and  threats; 
and  to  this  is  added  an  appendix  (xxvii.)  on 
vows.  This  portion  of  the  law  of  Leviticus  is 
arranged,  therefore,  in  the  same  systematic  way 
as  the  former  portion,  and  the  two  parts  stand 
also  in  systematic  relation  to  one  another.  "As 
the  former  part  relates  to  the  birth  of  the  na- 
tion as  a  spiritual  commonwealth,  so  the  present 
part  relates  to  the  progress  of  their  social  life  as 
the  people  of  God."  Murphy.  Necessarily  there 
are  details  common  to  both  portions,  and  this 
sometimes  occasions  certain  slight  repetitions; 
but  such  repetitions  were  unavoidable  if  the 
systematic  character  of  the  legislation  above 
pointed  out  was  to  be  preserved.  Thus  the  pre- 
sent chapter,  on  a  superficial  view,  might  seem 
as  Knobel  has  suggested,  to  be  connected  witli 
the  law  of  sacrifice;  but  on  examination  it  will 
be  at  once  seen  that  the  subject  here  is  the  sanc- 
tification of  animal  food,  and  to  this  sacrifice, 
although  generally  necessary,  is  only  incidental. 
Or,  as  Knobel  also  suggests,  it  might  seem  to  be 
connected  with  the  laws  of  clean  and  unclean 
food  of  ch.  xi.;  but  the  purpose  is  wholly  differ- 
ent,— there  the  question  is  what  may  be  eaten; 
here,  how  it  shall  be  eaten.  In  both  cases,  the 
former  chapters  have  for  their  main  point,  the 
laying  down  of  the  conditions  under  which 
Israel  may  enter  into  communion  with  God; 
these  that  follow  deal  with  the  conduct  of  the 
daily  life,  by  means  of  which  they  may  continue 
iu  that  communion.  The  eating  of  animal  food 
naturally  conies  first  into  consideration,  as  the 
act  which  must  be  continually  repeated  and 
continually  thrust  upon  the  attention. — F.  G.]. 

"2.  Our  section  begins  with  the  most  inti- 
mately connected  ways  of  preserving  holiness: 
(a)  of  the  slaying,  (&)  of  the  blood,  (c)  of  the 
use  of  the  flesh. 

"3.  Every  slaying  of  a  clean  animal  designed  for 
food  must  take  place  before  the  door  of  the  ta- 
bernacle of  congregation  quite  without  excep- 
tion, whether  the  slayer  was  within  or  without  the 


camp.  That  is  every  slaying  of  an  animal  was 
put  in  relation  with  the  peace  offering,  and  thus 
also  was  a  sort  of  sacrifice."  [It  does  not  ap- 
pear from  the  text  that  the  slaying  itself  took 
place  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  but  only  the 
offering,  'as  in  the  case  of  all  other  sacrifices. 
The  animal  was  probably  slain  where  the  other 
victims  were  slain,  this  being  passed  over  in  the 
text  as  already  provided  for  in  the  law  of  sac- 
rifice. These  slayings  for  food  were  in  every 
particular,  not  merely  like,  but  actual  peace 
offerings,  unless  a  distinction  should  be  sought 
in  the  fact  that  there  is  here  no  especial  pro- 
vision forgiving  a  portion  to  the  priests;  but 
that,  like  the  place  of  slaying,  has  already  been 
provided  for  in  the  law  of  sacrifice.  That  the 
meaning  of  this  passage  is,  that  all  sacrificial 
animals  killed  for  food  must  first  be  offered  as 
victims  in  sacrifice,  is  plain  from  the  removal 
of  the  restriction  in  Deut.  xii.  15,  20,  21.  It  is 
also  shown  by  the  use  of  DPIiV  instead  of  Vi2\  in 

ver.  3,  a  distinction  carefully  observed  in  the 
killeth  of  the  A.  V.  From  S.  Augustine  and 
Theodoret  down,  however,  there  has  always  been 
a  difference  of  opinion  upon  this  point  among 
interpreters;  most  modern  commentators,  how- 
ever (as  Rosenmuller,  Knobel,  Keil,  Kalisch, 
Clark,  etc.)  agree  that  the  law  must  relate  to  all 
killing  of  animals  for  food.  Not  much  animal 
food  was  used  in  the  wilderness,  as  is  evidenced 
by  the  various  murmurings  of  the  people,  the 
manna  forming  their  chief  support.  It  is  to  be 
remembered  that  this  part  of  the  law,  as  far  as 
ver.  7,  is  made  obligatory  only  upon  the  Israel- 
ites, and  even  for  them  was  in  force  only  du- 
ring the  life  in  the  wilderness ;  while  the  rest 
of  the  chapter  includes  also  "the  stranger" 
in  its  requirements. — F.  G.].  "The  offering, 
indeed,  consisted  in  this,  that  the  animal  was 
brought  to  the  Tabernacle  of  congregation,  and 
placed  before  the  priest,  and  that  the  priest 
sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  same  on  the  altar, 
and  burned  the  fat  for  a  sweet  savour. 
The  same  rule  was  obligatory  for  the  strangers 
not  of  Israel,  if  they  wished  not  only  to  slay, 
but  with  their  slaying  to  bring  also  a  burnt  or 
peace  offering — they  might  offer  only  before  the 
door  of  the  tabernacle  of  congregation;  for  the 
public  worship  of  false  gods  was  forbidden  in 
Israel  (Ex.  xxiii.  32,  33)."  [This  law,  in  regard 
to  sacrificing,  is  made  obligatory  upon  the 
strangers,  as  well  as  upon  the  house  of 
Israel  in  vers.  8,  9;  but  the  previous  part  of 
the  law  (vers.  1-7)  applies  only  to  the  Israelites. 
Both  were  restrained  from  offering  sacrifices 
elsewhere;  but  only  the  latter  were  obliged  to 
make  offerings  of  all  animals  slain  for  food. — 
F.  G.]  "The  opposite,  which  was  at  the  same 
time  to  be  avoided  by  the  Israelites,  reads  thus: 
they  shall  no  more  sacrifice  their  sacri- 
fices to  the  he-goats  (Luther:  the  field- 
devils),  as  to  those  which  they  who  are  in  the 
snare  whore  after.  Thus  we  understand  the 
expression  in  reference  to  this,  not  as  a  reproach  : 
which  they  whore  after  hitherto,  or  are  inclined 

to  whore  after."  [The  Heb.  is  D'JT  DH  1UW 
Dronx,  which  seems  sufficiently  well  expressed 
in  the  A.  V.,  and  this  is  sustained  (either  in  lue 


CHAP.  XVII.  1-16. 


135 


present  or  the  past  tense)  by  all  the  ancient 
versions. — F.  G.]  "  Rightly  the  Egyptian  wor- 
ship of  the  he  goat  was  remembered,  which  was 
a  deification  of  the  generative  desire,  and  con- 
sequently of  sensuality,  and  the  biblical  expres- 
sion to  whore  after  applies  in  this  connection 
with  double  force.  It  can  thus  be  perceived 
that  the  offering  of  the  slain  flesh,  besides  the 
religious  idea,  had  also  the  moral  purpose  of 
hindering  unrestrained  luxury.  But  with  the 
sacrifice  of  the  slain  animal,  the  fact  was  at  the 
same  time  declared,  that  in  truth  every  animal 
enjoyed  in  the  fear  of  God  was  offered  to  the 
L'ird ;  that  the  man  who  must  offer  himself  to 
Jehovah  must  also  place,  his  slaying  of  an  ani- 
mal under  the  aspect  of  giving  it  up  to  Jehovah, 
if  lie  wished  to  keep  it  holy.  Therefore  also  the 
transgression  is  treated  as  a  blood-guiltiness, 
and  would  be  visited  upon  them  by  Jehovah  as 
a  murder.  Since  man  has  the  right  to  shed  the 
blood  of  an  animal  only  from  Jehovah,  and  in 
relation  to  Jehovah  (to  whom  everything,  with 
this,  must  revert  as  a  sacrifice),  a  reckless  slay- 
ing of  an  animal  appears  in  the  text  as  the  be- 
ginning of  a  criminal  blood-shedding,  which  on 
a  descending  path,  may  end  in  the  murder  of 
man."  [Vers.  1-7.  Ver.  4.  Blood  shall  be 
imputed  unto  that  man ;  he  hath  shed 
blood.  This  does  not  mean  that  murder  is  to 
be  imputed  to  the  offender,  but  that  the  blood 
of  the  animal  which  he  has  actually  shed  is  to 
be  reckoned  to  his  charge.  The  reason  of  both 
this  precept  and  that  against  the  eating  of  blood 
is  given  in  ver.  11:  Blood  had  been  divinely 
appointed  as  a  means  of  atonement.  If  now  the 
animal  slain  was  one  allowable  for  sacrifice,  and 
its  blood  was  not  used  for  atonement,  the  offen- 
der was  guilty  of  a  misuse  of  that  which  God 
had  appointed  for  this  purpose,  and  he  must  be 
held  responsible  for  the  wasted  blood.  By  ana- 
logy, the  blood  of  animals  that  were  not  sacrifi- 
cial (vers.  13,  14)  must  also  be  treated  with 
respect.  It  is  important  to  note  this  meaning 
of  the  passage,  for  nowhere  in  Scripture  is  any- 
thing ever  said  to  be  imputed  to  a  man  by  God 
which  does  not  really  belong  to  him. — That 
man  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  peo- 
ple.— The  slighting  of  the  Divinely  appointed 
means  of  atonement  was  a  sin  which  struck  so 
deeply  at  the  root  of  the  theocratic  and  typical 
law  that  it  was  inconsistent  with  membership 
among  the  holy  people.  The  offender  must  be 
excommunicated.  Ver.  5.  A  further  reason  is 
here  given  for  the  law  of  ver.  4.  It  is  only 
applied  to  peace  offerings,  for  this  was  the  only 
kind  of  sacrifice  that  could  be  used  by  the  peo- 
ple for  food,  the  subject  of  this  paragraph. 
This  reason  is  further  developed  in  ver.  7.  It 
would  seem  that  the  Israelites,  very  lately  come 
out  of  Egypt,  were  more  or  less  in  the  habit,  so 
common  among  all  nations  of  antiquity  (eorap. 
1  Cor.  viii. ;  x.  25-28),  of  consecrating  all  ani- 
mal food  by  first  offering  the  animal  to  the 
Deity ;  and  this  custom,  if  allowed  to  be  carried 
out  by  the  people  at  their  own  pleasure,  would 
become,  and  indeed  had  already  become  (ver. 
7)  a  fruitful  source  of  idolatry.  Entirely  to  cut 
off  this,  it  is  provided  that  all  such  offerings  must 
be  brought  first  unto  the  door  of  the  taber- 
nacle, the  place  of  the  sole  worship  of  Jehovah ; 


and  second,  unto  the  priest,  as  His  represent- 
ative, and  the  mediator  between  Him  and  the 
people.  The  custom  of  sacrificing  in  the  open 
field  also  prevailed  among  the  nations  of  classic 
antiquity,  and  was  so  inveterate  among  the 
Israelites  as  to  be  spoken  of  by  both  Hosea 
(xii.  11)  and  Jeremiah  (xiii.  27).  Ver.  7. 
Unto  demons. — The  Hebrew  word,  as  noted 
under  Textual,  is  the  same  as  that  for  he-goats, 
Q'y^'U'.  Onkelos  has  J'TBf,  the  same  word  as 
is  used  in  Deut.  xxxii.  17,  meaning  demons. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  the  word  is  used  of  an 
actual  worship  of  a  false  god  under  the  form  of 
a  goat,  or  only  figuratively.  Certainly  at  a 
later  date  there  was  in  Thmuis,  the  capital  of 
the  Mendesian  nome  in  lower  Egypt,  and  there- 
fore near  the  residence  of  the  Israelites,  a  hor- 
rible and  licentious  worship  of  the  fertilizing 
principle  in  nature,  represented  by  a  he-goat 
(Joseph,  c.  Ap.  ii.  7:  Herod,  ii.  42,  46;  Diod. 
Sic.  i.  18;  Strabo,  lib.  xvii.  c.  19,  802;  c.  40, 
813) :  it  may  be  doubted  whether  this,  in  its  full 
development,  existed  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Moses ;  but  very  likely  it  may  have  already 
been  known  in  its  germ,  and  have  been  commu- 
nicated to  the  Israelites  (comp.  Heugstenberg 
Eg.  and  the  Books  of  Moses,  Am.  Ed.,  p.  216). 
The  strong  tendency  of  the  Israelites  to  adopt 
idolatrous  forms  of  worship  borrowed  from 
Egypt  had  already  been  shown  in  the  instance 
of  the  golden  calf;  and  we  find  again  (2  Chron. 
xi.  15)  this  very  worship  of  the  he-goat  (A.  V. 
)  mentioned  along  with  the  calves  of  Jero- 
boam, who  had  sojourned  so  long  in  Egypt  be- 
fore ascending  his  throne. — This  shall  be  a 
statute  forever  does  not  refer  to  the  sacri- 
ficing of  animals  designed  for  food,  which  was 
revoked  with  the  termination  of  the  life  in  the 
wilderness;  but  to  the  worship  of  demons, 
which  is  the  immediate  subject.  —  F.  G.] 

"  Knobel  thinks  this  statute  forever  was 
abolished  later,  when  the  animals  were  no  longer 
brought  to  the  Tabernacle  or  to  the  Temple; 
but  the  principal  thought  is  the  consecration  to 
Jehovah,  the  religious  slaying,  and  in  this  the 
statute  (the  husk  of  an  idea)  remains  among  the 
Jews  continually,  even  to  this  day.  But  the 
idea  itself  remains  continually  in  the  Christian 
community.  From  this  type  it  follows  also  that 
that  use  of  animal  food  was  sacrilegious  in  which 
the  distinction  between  the  nature  of  man  and 
of  animals  was  obliterated." 

"4.  Most  solemnly  is  the  use  of  blood  forbid- 
den. There  follows  immediately  the  menace  of 
punishment  in  the  strongest  terms  for  the 
stranger  as  well  as  for  the  Israelite:  I  1)7111 
even  set  my  face  against  that  soul  that 
eateth  blood,  and  will  cut  him  off  from 
among  his  people  [ver.  10].  The  reason  is 
this:  the  soul  or  life  of  the  flesh,  its  soul-like 
life-principle,  is  in  the  blood.  But  the  blood 
belongs,  as  does  all  life,  to  Jehovah,  and  He  ha3 
given  it  to  the  Israelites  only  for  a  definite  pur- 
pose, that  they  may  with  it  atone  for,  or  cover, 
their  souls.  The  blood  is  the  atonement  tor  the 
life,  since  in  the  blood  the  life  is  given  over  to 
the  judgment  of  Jehovah  for  deliverance  and  for 
pardon.  Therefore  the  prohibition  is  here  re- 
peated, as  it  has  also  been  already  expressed. 


136 


LEVITICUS. 


Even  to  the  blood  of  beasts  that  man  slays  in 
the  chase,  to  the  very  birds,  this  prohibition 
applies,  although  this  blood  was  not  offered  ;  it 
was  to  be  poured  out  and  covered  with  earth — 
it  was  to  be  buried.  The  burial  is  generally 
analogous  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  upon 
the  altar,  as  the  earth  is  an  altar  in  the  widest 
sense — it  is  a  symbol  of  the  atonement  of  the 
life,  which  lies  in  the  resignation  of  the  life. 
As  physiology  confirms  the  proposition  that  the 
blood  is  the  especial  source  of  life  in  living 
creatures,  so  do  justice  and  the  philosophy  of 
religion  confirm  the  proposition  that  death  atones 
for  the  guilt  of  life — so  far  as  it  is  on  this  Bide 
of  death  (Rom.  vi.  7).  And  the  use  of  blood 
must  appear  wicked  as  long  as  blood  was  the 
means  of  atonement.  But  the  analogue  for  this 
guilt,  for  all  times,  is  the  making  common  of* 
life,  of  death,  of  blood,  the  self-willed  invasion 
of  the  destiny  of  man."  [Vers.  10-14.  Lange 
has  not  here  called  attention  especially  to  vers. 
8,  9,  which  show  that  the  stranger  was  allowed 
to  offer  both  the  burnt  offering  and  the  sac- 
rifice (i.  e.  the  peace  offering) ;  only  in  so  doing 
he  must  conform  to  the  law  in  offering  it  at  tin- 
door  of  the  tabernacle.  This  command  is  given 
here  because  the  previous  statute  being  only 
applicable  to  the  Israelite,  and  the  stranger  nut 
being  required  to  offer  as  sacrifices  the  animals 
he  might  kill  for  food,  he  might  have  claimed 
the  liberty  also  of  offering  sacrifices  at  his  own 
pleasure.  The  penalty  of  ver.  9,  since  it  applies 
equally  to  the  stranger,  cannot  be  restricted  to 
excommunication,  but  must  be  understood  either 
of  banishment  from  the  land  or  else  of  the  pun- 
ishment of  death.  The  object,  as  already  no- 
ticed, and  as  is  evident  from  the  amplification 
of  the  law  in  Deut..  xii.,  was  at  once  to  prevent 
idolatrous  sacrifices,  and  also  to  keep  up  the 
idea  of  the  sacrifice  as  having  only  a  typical 
and  not  an  intrinsic  efficacy,  since  it  could  only 
be  allowed  at  all  when  its  blood  was  sprinkled 
on  the  altar  by  the  appointed  priest.  The  other 
injunctions  that  follow  in  this  chapter,  equally 
with  the  present  one,  are  applicable  to  strangers 
as  well  as  Israelites.  In  ver.  10  the  expression 
set  my  face  against  means  that  God  will  take 
the  punishment  of  the  offence  into  His  own 
hands ;  He  will  oppose  and  reject  the  offender. 
In  ver.  11  the  vicarious  character  of  the  atone- 
ment effected  by  means  of  the  sacrifices  is  very 
clearly  brought  out ;  the  soul,  the  i\niX'U  the  prin- 
ciple of  animal  life,  is  in  the  blood,  and  for  that 
reason  the  "  soul "  of  animals  was  given  to  man  to 
make  an  atonement  for  his  own  "soul;"  by  the 
giving  up  of  the  life  of  the  animal  the  life  of  man 
was  spared.  Nothing  is  said  here  of  the  higher 
spiritual  principle  in  man,  because — even  if  the 
people  could  have  understood  such  a  distinct  ion — 
there  was  nothing  answering  to  this  in  the  brute. 
Nothing  in  the  victim  could  be  a  vicarious  sub- 
stitute for  this;  that  want  could  be  met  only  by 
the  sacrifice  of  Calvary.  Meantime,  however, 
this  was  symbolized  and  set  forth,  as  far  as  the 
nature  of  the  case  allowed,  by  the  substitution 
of  the  animal  life  of  the  victim  for  the  animal 
life  of  man.  The  blood,  therefore,  maketh  an 
atonement  by  means  of  the  soul  which  is 
in  it.  See  Textual  note  8.  The  statement  is  not 
here,  that  the  blood  makes  atonement  for   the 


soul,  as  in  the  A.  V.;  this  idea  has  already  been 
expressed  in  the  previous  clause,  and  row  is 
added  the  statement  of  how  this  is  effected,  lest 
there  should  seem  to  be  a  virtue  in  the  mere 
blood  itself  as  such.  With  this  exposition  of  the 
meaning  of  the  passage  itself  must  be  connected 
the  whole  typical  significance  of  sacrifice;  and 
in  view  of  this  there  is  truth  in  the  explanation 
of  Theodoret,  of  the  Jewish  expositors,  and  of 
the  great  mass  of  commentators,  that  the  animal 
life  of  the  victims  was  accepted  in  place  of  the 
rational  soul  of  man;  the  former  died  that  the 
latter  might  live.  But  that  this  sense  can  only 
be  held  in  view  of  the  connection  of  the  type 
with  the  Antitype  was  long  ago  seen  by  St.  Au- 
gustine (Qusest.  57  in  llept.).  In  ver.  13  the 
particular  is  put  for  the  general ;  as  during  the 
life  of" the  wilderness  most  animals  used  tor  food 
which  were  not  sacrificial  were  taken  in  the 
chase,  this  stands  for  all  such  animals.  Hut  af- 
terward (Deut.  xii.  15,  16,  22-24)  the  same  di- 
rection of  pouring  out  the  blood  upon  the  earth 
is  applied  to  all  animals  slain  for  food.  The  ob- 
ject of  the  command  to  cover  the  blood  was  pro- 
bably double ;  first,  simply  to  prevent  the  dese- 
cration of  the  blood  as  the  vehicle  of  the  animal 
soul;  second,  to  avoid  any  abuse  of  it  to  super- 
stitious and  idolatrous  uses.  Ver.  14  once  more 
repeats  with  emphasis  the  prohibition  of  the 
eating  of  the  blood,  and  for  the  same  reason — 
because  the  blood  is  the  soul,  i.  e.,  the  vehicle  of 
the  animal  life.- — F.  G.] 

5.  "  The  use  of  unclean  flesh  (ver.  15)  could  not 
be  placed  on  an  equality  with  the  foregoing  sins, 
since  it  might  take  place  through  many  forms 
of  thoughtlessness  ;  but  nevertheless  it  was  pre- 
vented through  the  natural  loathing.  Hence  the 
offender,  in  the  first  instance,  fell  only  into  the 
first  grade  of  the  law  of  purification  ;  but  if  he 
neglected  this,  he  had  to  make  expiation  for  his 
misdeed. 

"  Keil  (following  Baumgarten)  entitles  the 
section  chap.  xvii. — xx.  the  holiness  of  the  daily 
life  of  the  Israelites,  and  chap.  xvii.  particularly 
the  holiness  of  food.  Certainly  the  sanctificalion 
of  the  eating  of  flesh  leads  to  the  sanctification 
of  food  generally.  On  '  the  oneness  of  soul  and 
blood,'  see  Keil,  p.  126."  [Trans,  pp.  409-10. 
See  also  Clark's  note  II.  at  the  end  of  this  chap- 
ter. The  prohibition  of  flesh  that  had  not  been 
properly  slaughtered  evidently  rests  on  the  fact 
that  its  blood  had  not  been  poured  out.  Still,  as 
even  in  this  case  most  of  the  blood  would  be  col- 
lected in  the  larger  vessels  of  the  body,  and 
would  not  appear  as  blood  in  the  flesh  that  was 
eaten,  there  is  less  stringency  in  the  prohibition. 
The  defilement,  however,  was  still  considerable, 
and  involved  alike  for  the  Israelite  and  the 
stranger,  the  washing  of  the  clothes  and  the 
bathing  of  the  person,  and  remaining  unclean 
until  the  evening  (ver.  15).  That  which  died 
of  itself,  or  that  which  was  torn,  are  here 
classed  together,  as  also  in  chap.  xxii.  8.  In 
Ex.  xxii.  31  the  latter  is  commanded  to  be  given 
to  the  dogs,  and  in  Deut.  xiv.  21  the  former  is 
allowed  to  be  given  to  the  stranger,  or  sold  to  an 
alien.  There  appears  to  have  been  a  certain 
degree  of  distinction  between  the  two,  although 
both  are  forbidden  to  the  Israelite.  That  which 
died  of  itself  was  also  forbidden  to  the  stranger 


CHAP.  XVII.  1-16. 


137 


during  the  intimate  association  of  Israelite  and 
stranger  in  the  camp  life  of  the  wilderness,  but 
this  law  was  relaxed  in  Deuteronomy  in  view  of 
the  better  separated  life  in  the  land  of  Canaan. 
Such  food,  however,  was  always  considered 
polluting  to  the  Israelite  (Ez.  iv.  14;  xliv.  31), 
and  its  touch,  as  has  already  been  seen  (xi.  39) 
communicated  defilement.  At  the  council  of  Je- 
rusalem (Acts  xv.  29)  the  prohibition  of  "things 
strangled"  is  still  continued  in  connection  with 
the  prohibition  of  blood. — F.  G.] 

DOCTEINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  The  command  that  all  sacrifices  should  be 
offered  in  one  place  was  plainly  a  part  of  that 
educational  law  which  had  been  added  because 
of  transgressions.  There  had  been  no  such  re- 
striction laid  upon  the  patriarchs;  and  under 
the  law  itself,  it  was  often  dispensed  with  by 
Divine  command,  or  with  the  Divine  approval,  as 
in  the  case  of  Samuel,  of  David,  of  Solomon,  and 
of  Elijah.  Its  purpose  was  to  teach  symbolically 
the  Divine  unity,  and  to  prevent  the  worship  of 
false  gods.  When  this  lesson  had  been  suffi- 
ciently taught  came  the  hour  "  when  neither  in 
this  mountain,  nor  yet  at  Jerusalem,''  men  should 
"worship  the  Father"   (Jno.  iv.  21). 

II.  When  the  Israelites  sacrificed  otherwise 
than  at  the  tabernacle,  though  the  idols  to  which 
they  professed  to  offer  might  be  nothing,  yet 
really  they  sacrificed  to  demons.  So  St.  Paul 
teaches  it  was  with  the  sacrifices  of  the  heathen 
in  his  time  (1  Cor.  x.  19,  20),  and  he  warns 
Christians  that  by  partaking  of  those  sacrifices 
they  came  into  fellowship  with  demons,  and  this 
was  incompatible  with  partaking  of  "the  cup 
of  the  Lord."  The  same  consequences  must  in 
all  ages  attend  the  offering  of  the  homage  of  the 
heart  elsewhere  than  to  God. 

III.  This  unfaithfulness  to  God  is  represented 
here,  as  so  constantly  in  the  later  Scriptures, 
by  conjugal  infidelity.  As  husband  and  wife 
are  no  longer  twain,  but  one  flesh,  so  are  the 
faithful  united  to  their  Head  in  one  body,  and 
any  giving  of  superior  allegiance  to  another  is  as 
the  sin  of  marriage  unfaithfulness. 

IV.  The  blood  and  the  soul,  or  animal  life 
WSi),  are  here  connected  together,  and  the  same 
word  is  used  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  Isa.  liii. 
10,  and  the  corresponding  Greek  word  ( 
repeatedly  by  our  Lord  Himself  (Matt.  ss.  28; 
Jno.  x.  11,  etc.).  He  gave  His  life  (V"',f))  for  us. 
In  view  of  the  connection  established  in  this 
chapter  between  this  and  the  blood,  a  fresh  sig- 
nificance attaches  to  His  words  of  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  (Matt.  xxvi.  27,  28).  The 
drinking  of  the  cup  which  lie  gave,  is  the  com- 
munion m  His  sacrifice  for  the  remission  of  Bins. 

IIOMILETICAL   AND    PRACTICAL. 

Lange  :  "  That  animal  food  as  used  by  man, 
was  to  be  kept  holy  by  a  religious  consecration 
and  slaying,  excludes  the  use  of  flesh  that  is  un- 
hallowed or  lias  been  offered  to  demons.  Man 
was  to  have  a  feeling  for  the  suffering  of  the  ani- 
mal, for  the  sacrificial  particular  of  the  act  of 
Blaying,  for  the  religio-moral  duty  of  thankful 
and  moderate  use  of  flesh.  Hence  there  is  an 
21 


element  of  truth  also  in  the  dogma  of  the  vege- 
tarians. But  all  blood  must  be  reserved  as  an 
offering  to  Jehovah  ;  for  Jehovah  alone  is  the 
Author  of  life,  the  God  of  all  souls,  and  it  is  a 
crime  to  encroach  greedily  upon  His  domain. 
But  how  does  the  eating  of  blood  in  Christendom 
agree  with  this,  as  the  council  of  the  Apostles 
(Acts  xv.)  have  forbidden  it,  and  as  it  is  still 
forbidden  in  the  Oriental  Church?  The  New 
Testament  thought  is  the  holiness  and  inviola- 
bility of  everything  living  in  itself,  since  a  cre- 
ative breath  of  life  dwells  in  it.  If  man,  without 
an  object,  sheds  blood  or  destroys  life,  he  de- 
stroys the  sanctuary  of  Divine  goodness.  The 
outline  of  the  legal  prescription  disappears  be- 
hind these  thoughts.  Men  may  be  very  careful, 
as  in  Byzantium  and  in  Russia,  to  avoid  the  eat- 
ing of  blood,  and  still  be  in  many  ways  crimi- 
nally careless  with  life,  even  with  the  life  of 
man.  Connected  with  the  eating  of  flesh,  the 
eating  of  the  flesh  of  an  animal  that  has  died  of 
itself,  or  been  torn  by  wild  beasts,  is  also  forbid- 
den, even  if  in  a  slighter  degree.  In  the  fact 
that  such  a  use  of  flesh  has  in  itself  something 
savage,  and  is  a  source  of  many  sicknesses,  lies 
the  permanent  thought  of  this  legal  command." 

Calvin  notes  that  the  command  to  sacrifice  in 
one  place  was  to  avoid  corruption  of  the  sacri- 
fices, and  the  direction  to  bring  the  offering  to 
the  priest  was  to  direct  the  people  to  the  One 
Mediator  to  come.  Thus  everywhere.the  law  is 
our  school-master  to  point  us  to  Christ.  No  of- 
fering acceptable  to  God  can  be  offered  except 
through  Him,  and  all  enjoyment,  of  daily  life  must 
be  made  holy  through  His  mediation. 

God  does  not  impute  to  man  the  fault  which  is 
not  his;  but  the  fault  which  is  really  his  may 
bo  far  more  serious  than  he  supposes.  The  kill- 
ing of  an  animal  otherwise  than  God  allowed, 
was  the  shedding  of  blood — of  blood  which  had 
been  given  for  man's  atonement ;  and  so  now, 
many  sins  which  seem  upon  the  surface  mere 
sins  of  frivolity  and  thoughtlessness,  will  prove 
on  closer  examination  to  be  deep  offences  against 
the  love  of  Him  who  shed  His  blood  for  us  on 
the  cross. 

Any  offering  of  sacrifice  otherwise  than  in  the 
way  of  God's  appointment,  became  to  the  Isra- 
elites a  sacrificing  to  demons;  so  any  giving  to 
other  objects  of  the  supreme  affection  He  re- 
quires for  Himself,  becomes  to  us  idolatry.  Comp. 
Eph.  v.  5;  Col.  iii.  6. 

Strangers  must  in  many  respects  come  under 
the  laws  given  to  the  people  of  God.  Men  do 
not  escape  the  responsibility  of  obedience  by  re- 
fusing to  acknowledge  allegiance,  and  to  be  num- 
bered with  His  people. 

In  the  treatment  of  the  blood  of  the  wild  ani- 
mal is  taught  the  general  principle  of  oongruity 
in  matters  which  are  not  the  subject  of  direct 
precepts.  Man  should  order  all  his  ways  in  har- 
mony with  the  conduct  which  in  certain  things 
is  directly  commanded.  Especially  under  the 
Christian  dispensation  is  this  principle  of  wide 
application.  Here  principles  are  given  rather 
than  detailed  precepts,  to  guide  our  conduct,  and 
we  must  largely  be  governed  by  the  congruity 
and  fitness  of  things,  and  their  harmony  with 
» liat  which  is  commanded. 


138 


LEVITICUS. 


SECOND   SECTION.. 

/ 

Holiness  of  the    Marriage   Relation. 
Chapter  XVIII. 

"  The  keeping  holy  of  marriage,  of  all  sexual  relations,  and  of  all  the  relations  of  life  in  general." 

Chapters  XVIII.— XX. 

A— "THE  KEEPING  HOLY  OF  MARRIAGE  AND  OF  ALL  SEXUAL  RELATIONS  UNDER 
THE  PENALTY  OF  THE  CHEREM."— Lanoe. 

Chapter  XVIII. 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE. 


On  the  "Prohibited  Degrees"  and  on 

The  law  declaring  under  what  conditions  sex- 
ual intercourse  is  forbidden  is  given  in  the  pre- 
sent chapter ;  the  punishment  of  disobedience  in 
the  several  cases  is  declared  in  xx.  10-21.  The 
latter  is  naturally  less  full,  leaving  the  punish- 
ment in  some  instances  to  be  inferred  from  ana- 
logy ;  and  in  one  case  it  is  considered  by  some 
commentators  that  there  is  a  slight  extension  of 
the  law  here  given.  See  on  xx.  20.  The  law 
covers  all  sexual  intercourse  whether  by  formal 
marriage  or  by  simple  concubinage;  and  when 
the  wives  of  various  persons  are  mentioned,  the 
term  includes  their  wives  when  living,  and  their 
widows  when  they  were  themselves  dead.  It  is 
remarkable  that  it  makes  no  exception  in  favor 
of  such  marriages  as  had  occurred  among  the 
ancestors  of  the  Israelites,  as  in  the  case  of  Ja- 
cob, from  which  they  were  themselves  descended. 
(The  marriage  of  Abraham  with  Sarah  was  pro- 
bably with  his  niece,  the  word  skier  allowiug  of 
this  latitude). 

The  whole  law  is  expressed  in  reference  to  the 
man,  since  the  inception  of  such  relations  rests 
with  him  ;  but  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose 
that  a  precisely  parallel  list  might  be  drawn  up 
also  for  the  woman.  Differences  are  introduced 
by  the  law  of  the  Levirate  marriage  (an  institu- 
tion much  more  ancient  than  the  time  of  Moses, 
see  Gen.  xxxviii.),  and  by  the  general  relation 
of  protector  and  protected;  the  law  therefore 
applies  to  the  woman  only  in  the  case  of  those 
relationships  in  which  the  man  is  forbidden  to 
have  intercourse  with  her.  Some  of  the  degrees 
which  are  prohibited  implicitly  are  not  expressly 
mentioned  :  thus  connection  with  a  daughter  is 
not  mentioned  by  itself,  although  necessarily  in- 
volved in  the  prohibition  of  intercourse  with  a 
woman  and  her  daughter  in  ver.  17  ;  that  with 
a  step-mother  is  included  in  ver.  8,  and  is  espe- 
cially mentioned  as  the  subject  of  one  of  the 


the  Marriage  Laws  of  the  Heathen. 

curses  in  Deut.  xxvii.  23 ;  that  with  a  grand- 
mother is  not  mentioned  at  all,  either  because  it 
was  considered  unnecessary  to  do  so,  or  else  be- 
cause it  was  sufficiently  implied  by  the  other  pro- 
hibitions. The  whole  law  is  expressly  grounded 
(vers.  2,  3,  24-27)  upon  the  duty  of  avoiding  the 
abominable  customs  of  the  Egyptians  and  the 
Canaanites,  so  that  there  was  the  less  necessity 
for  express  mention  of  anything  which  was  not 
practised  by  them. 

The  principle  on  which  the  prohibitions  rest 
(ver.  6)  is  expressly  declared  to  be  nearness  of 
relationship  ;  and  although  the  Hebrew  expres- 
sion employed  for  this  (lit.  flesh  of  bis  flesh) 
might  in  itself  apply  only  to  blood  relations,  yet 
it  is  distinctly  extended  in  the  law  to  relations 
by  affinity  also,  though  not  always  to  the  same 
degree.  In  the  remoter  degrees  the  relationship 
is  affected  by  other  considerations,  so  that  in 
parallel  cases,  sometimes  one  connection  is  for- 
bidden while  the  other  is  not  mentioned.  Gene- 
rally, the  whole  list  might  be  included  in  the 
single  prohibition  that  no  man  might  be  connec- 
ted with  a  woman  who  stood,  or  who  might  come 
to  stand  to  him  in  the  position  of  a  ward  ;  no  one 
who  could  be  included  in  the  family  of  which  he 
was  head.  In  this  connection  the  LXX.  trans- 
lation in  ver.  6  is  to  be  noted :  avdpuxos  Trpof 
navra  o'tKEla  capubt;  avrnv  ov  KpoGE?*£VG£Ta.L.  Such 
a  description,  however,  would  not  be  quite  ac- 
curate, since  the  niece  is  not  included  in  the  list 
of  prohibited  degrees  ;  and  there  are  two  pro- 
hibited cases  which  would  not  come  under  the 
description.  These  are  the  maternal  aunt,  who 
would  form  a  part  of  the  wife's  father's  or  bro- 
ther's family;  and  the  wife's  sister,  forbidden 
only  during  the  life-time  of  the  wife. 

The  prohibited  degrees  may  be  conveniently 
arranged  under  the  three  following  heads : 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE  ON  THE  PROHIBITED  DEGREES  OF  THE  HEATHEN.        139 


1.  Mother,  ver.  7. 
4.  Daughter,  ver.  17. 


6.  Mother-in-law,  ver.  17. 

9.  Step-grand-daughter,  ver.  17. 


a.     Relations  by  Blood. 

2.  Aunt  on  either  side,  vt>rs.  12,  13. 
6.  Grand-daughter,  vera.  10. 


3.  Sister  and  half  sister,  vers.  9,  1L 


b.     Direct  Relations  by  Affinity. 

7.  Step-mother,  ver.  8.  8.  Step-daughter,  ver.  17. 


c.     Indirect  Relations  by  Affinity. 

10.  Father's  brother's  wife,  ver.  14.  11.  Brother's  wife,  ver.  16.  12.  Daughter-in-law,  ver.  15. 


In  addition  to  these  there  is  a  temporary  pro- 
hibition of  the  wife's  sister  during  the  wife's 
own  life. 

Among  the  heathen  these  relationships  were 
very  differently  regarded.  Marriage  with  a  sis- 
ter was  permitted  among  the  Egyptians  by  ex- 
press law  in  consequence  of  the  legend  in  their 
mythology  of  the  marriage  of  Osiris  with  his 
sister  Isis  (Diod.  Sic.  i.  27;  Philo  de  Sp.  Legg. 
near  beginning),  and  this  custom  continued,  at 
least  in  the  royal  family,  quite  down  to  the  titno 
of  their  conquest  by  the  Romans  (Dio.  Cass.  xlii. 
p.  205,  E.  ed.,  Hanover,  1606).  With  regard  to 
marriage  with  a  mother,  direct  evidence  is  want- 
ing in  regard  to  the  Canaanites,  but  among  tho 
Medea  and  the  Persians  it  was  practised  from 
the  earliest  times,  as  also  among  the  Indians  and 
the  Ethiopians.  (See  the  authorities  in  Knobel), 
and  all  these  nations  appear  to  have  permits  d 
also  marriage  .with  a  daughter.  Marriage  with 
a  sister,  however,  was  unknown  among  the  Per- 
sians until  the  time  of  Cambyses,  (Herod,  iii. 
31).  Marriage  with  a  step-mot  Iter  seems  to  have 
b<;en  universal  among  Oriental  monarchs,  and 
the  inheritance  of  the  father's  seraglio  one  of 
the  marks  of  succession  to  his  throne.  Hence 
Solomon's  treatment  of  Adonijah  is  to  be  ex- 
plained when  he  sought  to  have  Abishag  given 
to  him  (1  Kings  ii.  13-25).  Marriage  with  a 
wife's  step-mother,  however,  is  not  forbidden, 
and  a  notable  instance  of  it  is  in  David's  inhe- 
riting the  wives  of  his  father-in-law  Saul,  spoken 
of  as  a  mark  of  the  Divine  favor,  2  Sam.  xii.  8. 

The  marriages  here  forbidden  are  spoken  of 
as  crimes  in  the  Canaanites  for  which  they  were 
about  to  be  punished.  While  it  is  not  necessary 
to  extend  this  to  each  particular,  still  it  must  be 
recognized  that  the  prohibited  degrees  generally 
were  such  as  could  be  understood  by  the  light 
of  nature  or  such  dim  tradition  of  the  Diviuo 
will  as  might  have  been  accessible  to  the  Ca- 
naanites. Accordingly,  it  is  well  known  that  the 
prohibited  degrees  among  the  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans were  for  the  most  part  the  same  as  in  the 
laws  of  Moses.  Solon  indeed  permitted  mar- 
riage with  a  half-sister  by  the  father  only,  and 
Lycurgus  with  a  half-sister  by  the  mother  only 
(Philo  de  Sp.  Legg.,  pp.  601,  F.  Ed.,  Geneva, 
1613)  ;  but  the  early  Roman  law  went  even  far- 
ther than  the  Levitical  in  forbidding  marriages 
between  uncles  and  nieces,  and  between  cousins 
german,  which  was  only  relaxed  in  the  2d  cent, 
before  our  era  (Liv.  xlii.  34  ;  Cicero  Cluent.  V. 
quoted  by  Clark).  Similar  laws,  too,  might  be 
quoted  from  other  nations,  showing  that  those 
of  the  Egyptians  and  Canaanites  were  simply  a 


license  to  passion,  contrary  to  what  they  might 
have  known  to  be  right. 

Marriage  with  a  deceased  wife's  sister  is 
clearly  allowed  under  the  Levitical  law,  not 
merely  by  not  being  prohibited  ;  but  being  pro- 
hibited during  the  lifetime  of  the  sister  first  taken 
to  wife,  it  becomes  doubly  certain  that  it  was 
permitted  afterwards.  It  is  even  made  still  mor^ 
clear  by  the  reason  assigned:  the  relations  of 
two  wives  of  the  same  mau  arc  not  apt  to  be 
friendly,  and  Mo=es  would  not  allow  either  that 
the  natural  affection  of  sisters  should  be  sub- 
jected to  this  strain,  or  that  the  inevitable  ani- 
mosities of  the  harem  should  be  increased  b^ 
the  previous  familiar  relation  of  sisters.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  marriage  with  a  brother's  widow 
was  forbidden,  evidently  because  she  became 
the  ward  of  the  surviving  brother  ;  and  because 
also  if  the  brother  had  died  childless  while  she 
remained  his  wife,  the  survivor  was  bound  to 
lake  her  by  a  Levirate  marriage.     In  either  case 

her  children  were  to  he  reck 1  I"  t  he  d a-ed 

In-other,  and  hence  the  penalty  for  violating  this 
precept  in  xx.  21  is  that  they  shall  be  childless, 
i.  c,  that  any  children  born  to  such  a  union 
should  be  reckoned  in  tho  genealogies,  not  to 
them,  but  to  the  deceased  brother.  The  law 
therefore  in  this  case  must  be  considered  as  bs  I 
upon  questions  of  civil  polity  and  not  upon  affi- 
nity. Hence  it  does  not  apply  to  the  parallel 
case  of  the  deceased  wife's  sister;  for  she  could 
never  have  formed  a  part  of  her  brother-in-law's 
household  under  the  family  system  of  the  He- 
brews. In  the  punishments  denounced,  in  ch. 
xx.  against  the  sins  here  prohibited,  it  will  be 
found  that  a  distinction  is  made  in  the  degree 
of  guilt.  One,  and  the  larger  class,  is  to  be  ca- 
pitally punished  (in  one  case  even  tho  bodies  of 
both  parties  are  to  be  burnt),  while  in  the  other 
class  the  penalty  is  simply  that  "they  shall  be 
childless."  It  cannot  be  supposed  t lint  a  per- 
petual miracle  was  to  be  maintained  through  all 
the  ages  of  Israel's  history  ;  but  the  meaning 
evidently  is  that  the  children  of  such  marriages 
should  be  reckoned  not  to  their  actual  father. 
but  to  the  former  husbund  of  the  woman.  In  the 
strong  feeling  of  the  Israelites  in  regard  to  pos- 
terity, this  penalty  seems  to  have  been  sufficient. 
(An  instance  of  this  use  of  the  word  childless  is 
to  be  found  in  Jer.  xxii.  30  compared  with  1 
Chr.  iii.  17,  18).  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 
the  more  remote  of  the  prohibited  degrees  were 
among  the  abominations  for  which  the  Canaan- 
ites were  to  be  cut  off;  but  on  the  other  hand 
adultery  and  the  other  horrible  sins  mentioned 
in  vers.  20-23  were  undoubtedly  among  their 
customs. 


140  LEVITICUS. 


Literature. — Michaelis,  Laws  of  Moses ;  Ab- 
kandlung  fiber  die  Ehegesetze  3Iosis ;  Saalscbutz, 
Mos.   Recht ;    Selden,   uxor  ebr.     See   also   the 


numerous  references  in  Calmet  on  this  chapter. 
Also,  John  Fry,  The  cases  of  marriage  between 
near  kindred,  etc.     London,  1756. 


Chapter  XVIII.  1-30. 

1,  2.     And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 

3  and.  say  unto  them,  I  am  the  Lord  your  God.  After  the  doings  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  wherein  ye  dwelt,  shall  ye  not  do :  and  after  the  doings  of  the  laud  of 
Canaan,  whither  I  bring1  you,  shall  ye  not  do :  neither  shall  ye  walk  in  their  ordi- 

4  nances  [statutes2].    Ye  shall  do  my  judgments,  and  keep  mine  ordinances  [statutes2], 

5  to  walk  therein  :  I  am  the  Lord  your  God.  Ye  shall  therefore  keep  3my  statutes, 
and  3my  judgments :  which  if  a  man  do,  he  shall  live  in  them  :  I  am  the  Lord. 

6  None  of  you  shall  approach  to  any  that  is  near  of  kin4  to  him,  to  uncover  their 

7  nakedness :  I  am  the  Lord.  The  nakedness  of  thy  father,  or  [even5]  the  naked- 
ness of  thy  mother,  shalt  thou  not  uncover :  she  is  thy  mother ;  thou  shalt  not 

8  uncover  her  nakedness.     The  nakedness  of  thy  father's  wife  shalt  thou  not  uncover : 

9  it  is  thy  father's  nakedness.  The  nakedness  of  thy  sister,  the  daughter  of  thy 
father,  or  daughter  of  thy  mother,  whether  she  be  born6  at  home,  or  born  abroad, 

10  even  their'  nakedness  thou  shalt  not  uncover.  The  nakedness  of  thy  son's  daugh- 
ter, or  of 'thy  daughter's  daughter,  even  their  nakedness  thou  shalt  not  uncover : 

11  for  their's  is  thine  own  nakedness.  The  nakedness  of  thy  father's  wife's  daughter, 
begotten  of  thy  father,  she  is  thy  sister,  thou  shalt  not  uncover  her  nakedness. 

12  Thou  shall  not  uncover  the  nakedness  of  thy  father's  sister  :8  she  is  thy  father's 

13  near  kinswoman.4     Thou  shalt  not  uncover  the  nakedness  of  thy  mother's  sister : 

14  for  she  is  thy  mother's  near  kinswoman.4  Thou  shalt  not  uncover  the  nakedness 
of  thy  father's  brother,9  thou  shalt  not  approach  to  his  wife:  she  is  thine  aunt. 

15  Thou  shalt  not  uncover  the  nakedness  of  thy  daughter  in  law:  she  is  thy  son's 

16  wife ;  thou  shalt  not  uncover  her  nakedness.     Thou  shalt  not  uncover  the  naked- 

17  ness  of  thy  brother's  wife:  it  is  thy  brother's  nakedness.  Thou  shalt  not  uncover 
the  nakedness  of  a  woman  and  her  daughter,  neither  shalt  thou  take  her  son's 
daughter,  or  her  daughter's  daughter,  to  uncover  her  nakedness ;  for  they  are  her 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  3.  "N^^.     Introducturus  mm.     Present  for  the  future."  Rosenmuller. 

2  Ver.  3.   DTTnpnD1!-    HpT"!  is  variously  and  apparently  arbitrarily  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  ordinance  and  statute, 

beside  the  occasional  renderings,  custom,  manner  and  rite.     There  is  no  reason  why  the  translation  should  not  bo  uniform, 
and  as  statute  is  the  more  common,  and  hitherto  iu  Lev.  the  uniform,  rendering,  this  is  adopted. 

8  Ver.  5.  One  MS.  and  the  LXX.  insert  twice  the  word  all    At  the  end  of  the  verse  the  LXX.  adds  your  God. 

*  Ver.  6.   1T^'3   HNLy-^-^,  lit-  to  any  flesh  of  his  flesh.    The  distinction  between  "V^'3  and  "1N#  is  not  under- 
t  :         ■•  :         t  t  t  -■  : 

stood.    The  derivative  of  the  latter,  n^Xl!?,  is  used  iu  ver.  17  (where  only  it  occurs)  of  blood  relationship.    The  margin 

T — :  — 
of  the  A.  V.  gives  "  Heb.  remainder  of  his  flesh  "  according  to  the  pointing,  IXtV.    In  vers.  12, 13,  INEZ  is  used  alono  of 

near  blood  relationship. 

6  Ver.  7.  That  the  copulative  1  ought  not  to  he  rendered  disjunctively  as  in  the  A.  V.  is  evident  from  the  latter  part 

of  the  verse.    LXX.  has  *cat,  Vulg.  et. 

0  Ver.  9.  fnVlO,  according  to  the  Masoretic  punctuation,  ia  Hiphil,  and  must  therefore  be  taken  as  active,  agreeing 
with  mother,  and  mean  "  who  hath  borne  children  whether  at  home  or  abroad."  The  A.  V.,  however,  in  common  with  all 
the  ancient  versions,  has  taken  it  as  passive,  mS*0,  agreeing  with  daughter.  For  the  rightfulness  of  this,  Michaelis 
earnestly  contends  (Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  114, 115).    See  Comment. 

'  Ver.  9.  The  Sam.,  18  MSS.  and  the  Syr.  have  the  pronoun  in  the  sing.    The  Vulg.  omits  it. 

8  Ver.  12.  In  the  same  construction  in  the  following  verse  ^3=for  is  supplied;  it  is  found  here  also  in  1  MSS.  and  in 
the  vorsions  generally. 

0  Vor.  11.  The  expletive  conjunction  1  is  here  supplied  in  the  Sam.,  in  25  MSS.,  and  some  ancient  vorsions. 


r  CHAP.  XVIII.  1-SO. 


HI, 


18  near  kinswomen :  it  is  wickedness.  Neither  shalt  thou  take  a  wife  to  her  sister,10 
to  vex  her,  to  uncover  her  nakedness,  beside  the  other  in  her  life  time. 

19  Also  thou  shalt  not  approach  unto  a  woman  to  uncover  her  nakedness,  as  long 

20  as  she  is  put  apart  for  her  uncleanness.     Moreover  thou  shalt  not  lie  carnally  with 

21  thy  neighbour's  wife,  to  defile  thyself  with  her.  And  thou  shalt  not  let  any  of  thy 
seed  pass  through  the  fire  to  Molech  [thou  shalt  not  dedicate  any  of  thy  seed  to 

22  Molech11],  neither  shalt  thou  profane  the  name  of  thy  God :  I  am  the  Lord.  Thou 

23  shalt  not  lie  with  mankind,  as  with  womankind  :  it  is  abomination.  Neither  shalt 
thou  lie  with  any  beast  to  defile  thyself  therewith :  neither  shall  any  woman  stand 
before  a  beast  to  lie  down  thereto :  it  is  confusion. 

24  Defile  not  ye  yourselves  in  any  of  these  things :  for  in  all  these  the  nations  are 

25  defiled  which" I  cast  out13  before  "you  :  and  the  land  is  defiled:  therefore  I  do  visit 

26  the  iniquity  thereof  upon  it,  and  the  land  itself  voniiteth13  out  her  inhabitants.  Ye 
shall  therefore  keep12  my  statutes  and  my  judgments,  and  shall  not  commit  any  of 
these  abominations  ;  neither  any  of  your  own  nation,  nor  any  stranger  that  sojourn- 

27  eth  among  you:  (for  all  these  abominations  have  the  men  of  the  land  done,  which 

28  were  before  you,  and  the  land  is  defiled  ;)  that  the  land  spue  not  you  out  also,  when 
ye  defile  it,  as  it  spued13  out  the  nations  that  were  before  you.  For  whosoever  shall 
commit  any  of  these  abominations,  even  the  souls  that  commit  them  shall  be  cut  oft" 
from  among  their  people.  Therefore  shall  ye  keep  mine  ordinance,  that  ye  commit 
not  any  one  of  these  abominable  customs  [statutes],  which  were  committed  before 
you,  and  that  ye  defile  not  yourselves  therein :  I  am  the  Loed  your  God. 


29 


30 


1°  Ver.  18.  There  can  be  here  no  qnestion  of  the  exact  literalness  of  the  rendering  of  the  text  of  the  A.  V. ;  that  of  the 
margin  is  not  a  translation,  tint  a  more  than  doubtful  interpretation.  It  would  be  an  absolute  prohibition  of  polygamy, 
which  is  here  out  of  the  question,  aniens  stress  were  laid,  as  Poolu  has  done,  upou  the  purpose  of  such  marriage,  to  vex; 

but  the  word  TixS=-ft>J>r«M>  to  bind  together,  will  not  justify  this. 

u    Ver.  21.  For  T31TI1?,  Sam.  and  LXX.  read  T3Vi"0— to  reduce  to  servitude.    A  similar  idea,  to  dedicate,  may  be 

given  to  the  Heb.  word  as  it  stands.  Vnlg.  ut  conseeretur,  and  similarly  all  the  ancient  versions.  So  the  word  is  used,  Ex. 
xiii.  12.  As  this  is  the  first  mention  of  Molech,  and  there  is  no  word  for  fire,  it  is  better  to  keep  strictly  to  the  original 
and  translate  dedicate.     Rosenmuller,  traducas.    The  corresponding  expressions  in  xx.  2,  3,  4,  have  simply   [HJ— to  give, 

without  the  following  verb.  According  to  the  Masoretic  punctuation  Molech  is  always  (except  1  Kings  xi.  7)  written  with 
the  article  "iVs!"!,  and  is  rendered  here  and  xx.  2,  3,  4,  5,  by  the  LXX.  ipx">",  hut  Jer.  xxxii.  (Gr.  xxxix.)  35,  6  MoAbx 
(SaciAevt,  1  Kings  xl.  7  (Or.  6),  Bimply  o  pairiAevs,  and  2  Kings  xxiii.  10,  o  MoAe*. 

i=  Ver.  20.  The  Heb.  has  here  the  pronoun  D,1N  in  addition  to  the  verbal  suflix.    It  is  omitted  in  the  Sam.  and  in  3 

MSS 

i*  Vers.  24,  25,  28.  In  ver.  24  nSci3  is  the  Hiphil  Part.= I  am  casting  out,  and  in  accordance  with  this  the  preterites 

Npnl  (which  has  the  1  conversivc)  of  ver.  25  and  PINp   WN3  of  Ter-  28  are  to  be  understood. 


EXEGETTCAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

This  chapter  consists  of  an  introductory  ex- 
hortation, vers.  2-5;  the  laws  against  incest, 
vers.  6-18;  the  prohibition  of  other  kind  of 
unchastity  and  unnatural  crimes,  vers.  19-23 ; 
and  a  concluding  exhortation,  vers.  24-30. 
"The  whole  marriage  law,  as  a  holy  limitation, 
marks  two  mutually  opposite  extremes  or  forms 
of  excess  :  first,  sins  against  the  blood  relation- 
ship, or  against  the  fear  of  desecrating  the  com- 
mon source  of  life,  the  community  of  blood, 
vers.  1-18  ;  secondly,  eins  of  the  dissolute  dispo- 
sition, the  horrible  passing  over  the  life-line  of 
pure  marriage,  or  the  new  relationship,  into  the 
various  forms  contrary  to  nature,  vers.  19-30." 
Lange. 

Vers.  2-5.  This  exhortation  opens  with  re- 
minding the  people  I  am  the  LORD  your 
God,  and  closes  with  the  abbreviation  of  the 
same  formula:  I  am  the  LORD.  The  same 
expression  occurs  again  in  the  midst  of  it  (ver. 
4),  and  also  at  the  opening  of  the  law  itself 
(ver.  6),  in  the  midst  of  the  third  division  of  the 


chapter  (ver.  21),  and  again  at  the  close  of  the 
whole.  It  is  designed  to  impress  most  strongly 
upon  the  minds  of  the  Israelites  that  the  obser- 
vance of  this  law  is  a  matter  of  covenant  obliga- 
tion. And  this  is  enforced  by  the  contrast  (ver. 
3)  with  the  doings  of  the  land  of  Egypt 
from  which  they  had  been  delivered,  and  the 
doings  of  the  land  of  Canaan  whose  nations 
were  about  to  be  cast  out  to  make  room  for  them. 
It  closes  with  the  promise  that  if  a  man  do  the 
Divine  statutes  and  judgments,  he  shall  live 
in  them.  Not  merely,  he  shall  not  be  cut  off 
by  the  punishments  denounced  against  the  trans- 
gression of  these  laws  in  ch.  xx.  ;  hut  he  shall 
gain  that  true  life  of  communion  with  God  which 
accompanies  the  obedience  to  His  commands. 
Comp.  Ezek.  xx.  11,  13,  21 ;  Luke  x.  28.  "This 
whole  legislation  bears  on  its  front  the  name  of 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  ver.  2,  in  the  more 
definite  signification  that  the  Israelites  should 
keep  themselves  holy  in  their  personality,  i.  e. 
true  to  themselves,  suitably  to  their  personality, 
as  Jehovah  is  holy  (xix.  2).  But  the  legislation 
took  its  occasion  in  this :  that  Israel,  as  the 
people  hallowed  by  God,  should  form  an  instruo- 


142 


LEVITICUS. 


tive  and  rebuking  contrast  to  the  shameful  sexual 
life  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  whence  they  had  just 
come  out,  and  that  still  more  shameful  of  the 
land  of  Canaan,  whither  they  were  going  under 
the  leadership  of  Jehovah.  .  .  .  That  this  legis- 
lation was  not  able  in  later  days  to  prevent 
transgressions,  e.g.  in  the  family  of  David  itself, 
is  explained  even  from  the  essential  nature  of 
law.  From  this  a  careful  critic  would  decide 
for  the  high  Mosaic  age  of  the  law  rather  than 
for  the  contrary. 

"  That  a  most  highly  living  intelligence  per- 
vades the  section  results  from  the  various  signi- 
ficant expressions:  the  judgments  and  sta- 
tutes of  Jehovah. (ver.  4)  become  for  the  people 
the  statutes  and  judgments  (first  law,  and 
only  afterwards  the  idea  (ver.  5)."  [Patrick 
says:  "The  Gemara  Babylonica,  mentioning 
these  words,  saith,  it  is  a  tradition  of  their  doc- 
tors that  by  D'DDU'p  are  to  be  understood  such 
natural  laws  as  all  mankind  are  bound  to  ob- 
serve, though  there  were  no  written  commands 
for  them,  such  as  those  against  idolatry,  and 
those  about  uncovering  the  nakedness  of  such 
near  relations  as  are  here  mentioned,  and  mur- 
der, etc.  And  by  nipn  such  laws  are  meant 
as  depended  only  on  the  pleasure  of  God,  and 
obliged  none  but  those  to  whom  they  were  given, 
such  as  those  about  meats  and  garments  and 
leprosy,  etc."  F.  G.]  "That  which  is  contrary 
to  nature  in  the  marriage  of  relations  consists 
in  this:  that  the  man  by  his  family  life,  which 
should  be  the  foundation  of  new  bonds  of  love 
and  new  families,   mingles  again   egotisticallly 

with  his  own  flesh  (^"ISM  INtf-V.3  W) ;  and 
that  by  profane  conduct  he  exposed  the  obscure 
and  hallowed  origin  of  his  own  life  (uncovered 
the  shame),  and  thus  repeated  the  sin  of  Ham  (for 
the  shame  of  the  wife  of  near  kin  is  also  the  shame 
of  the  father,  xx.  11).  Therefore  also  it  is  neces- 
sary to  explain  the  saying  which  if  a  man  do, 
he  shall  live  in  them  in  its  particular  connec- 
tion :  all  these  directions  tend  to  the  furtherance 
of  life,  especially  of  the  higher  life,  while  the  con- 
trasted sexual  relations  produce  death. 

"The  case  of  adultery  is  not  considered, 
since  the  reference  is  to  widows  when  connec- 
tions with  those  who  havebeen  married  before  are 

considered The  determining  principle  is 

that  of  community  of  blood  (INij).  But  this  is 
itself  determined  by  the  fundamental  idea  that 
man  and  wife  are  one.  Hence  it  follows  that 
the  shame  of  the  father's  wife  is  also  the  shame 
of  the  father  himself  (vers.  7,  8).  The  shame 
of  a  grand-daughter  was  looked  upon,  since  she 
was  a  descendant,  as  the  shame  of  the  grand- 
father himself  (ver.  10).  The  shame  of  the  sis- 
ter-in-law was  thus  also  looked  upon  as  the 
Bhame  of  the  brother. 

"As  to  the  guilt  and  punishment,  the  death- 
penalty  stands  according  to  xx.  11  sqq.  for  the 
carnal  intercourse  (not.  merely  the  marrying) 
with  a  father's  wife,  with  a  daughter-in-law,  with 
a  half-sister"  [and  hence  of  course  with  a  full 
sister]  ;  "  the  punishment  was,  indeed,  death  by 
fire  when  one  took  a  woman  and  her  daughter 
together  (that  is  HOt)."  [This  necessarily  in- 
cludes the  case  of  a  daughter,  and  of  a  wife'" 


mother.     Michaelis  (Laws,  Art.   102)  considers 
TTSI  as   a  forensic  term  used  to   express   those 
forms  of  incest  in  which  the  woman  is  under  the 
guardianship  of  the  man,  and  derives  the  word 
from   the  Arabic  in   which  "  Zimm  means  mar- 
riage, and  Zimma  the  state  of  guardianship  (Cli- 
entela),  from  the  word  Zamm,  to  connect."     This 
sense   is   indeed   appropriate   for    the   very  few 
places  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  law   (Lev.  xviii. 
17  ;   xix.  29  ;   xx.  14  bis),  but  elsewhere  it  is  used 
for  any  abominable  wickedness  (as  Job  xxxi.  11) 
especially  lewdness   (Judg.  xx.  6).      See  Gesen. 
Thes. — F.  G.].     "It  is   said  indefinitely  of  the 
intercourse  with  a  sister  of  the  father  or  of  tbe 
mother,  they  shall  bear  their  iniquity  (jU')." 
[xx.  19.  Michaelis  (Art.  112,  2)  observes  iu  re- 
gard  to  these  and  the  following  kinds  of  pro- 
hibited marriages,  that   Moses  tolerated   "  their 
continuance,  if  once  consummated.     At  least  he 
nowhere  enjoins  a  separation  of  the  parties."    It 
might  be  argued,  indeed,  that  a  forbidden  mar- 
riage was  utterly  void,  and  therefore  that  its  sin 
was  constantly  renewed  as  long   as  the   parties 
continued  to  sustain  towards  each  other  the  mar- 
riage relation;  but   certainly  the  penalty  in  the 
two  following  classes  presupposes  that  they  con- 
tinued to  live  together. — F.  G.}.     "In  contrast 
with  this,  it  is  said  of  him   who  slept   with  his 
father's  brother's  wife,  they  shall  bear  their 
sin  (DNUn) ;  they  shall  die  childless"  [xx. 
201.     "  So  also  of  the  case  when  any  one  takes 
his  brother's  wife,  that  is  mj  (Levitical  unclean- 
ness),   they  shall   be   childless"    [xx.   21]. 
"  Thus  the  social  punishment  is  not  wholly  ab- 
sent here  also,  but  the  principal  thing   was  the 
threat  of  the  Divine   punishment  of  these  con- 
nections with  childlessness."      [On  the  meaning 
of  this  punishment,  see  the   preliminary  note. — 
F.  G.].     '■  Since  in  all  these  cases  the  willingness 
on  the  woman's  side  is  assumed,  the  threat  of  the 
penalty  is  for  both  sides  alike.    It  is  worth  while 
to  notice  also  the  circumstance   that  the  penal 
statutes  which  refer  to  the  marriage  of  relations 
are  mingled   with  other  penal  statutes  (xx.  13, 
15,  16),  a  proof  that  here  in  chap.   xx.    another 
point  ofview  is  brought  forward.     But  if  in  re- 
gard to  the  prohibition  of  the  marriage  with  a 
brother's   widow   childlessness  was   threatened, 
while  later  the  prohibition  could  be  changed  re- 
latively into  a  command  in  the  ordinance  of  the 
Levirate  marriage  "  [the  Levirate  marriage  took 
place  only  in  case  the  brother  died   childless — 
F.  G.]  ;   "  still  there  is  made  definitely  prominent 
a  principal  end  of  the  legislation  in  the  manifold 
threat  of  childlessness,  which  evidently  extended 
also  over  the  greater  transgressions  or  reached 
the   Cherem  :   marriage  was  to  be  protected,  ob- 
served,  and  kept  holy  as  the  nursery  for   the 
raising  of  children,  for  new  families,  and   truly 
for  pure  and  hallowed  families  (comp.  Com.  on 
Jno..  p.  47"  [Am.  Ed.,  p.  111]). 

"  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  treatment  of 
these  prohibited  degrees  of  marriage  various 
motives  have  been  given,  among  others  the  fol- 
lowing: the  diminution  and  prevention  of  fami- 
lies in  the  marriage  of  relations.  This  motive 
comes  out  strongly  here.  Also  in  the  expression 
in  ver.  5,  he  shall  live  by  them."  [A  broader 
meaning  may  be  given,  as  above,  to  ver.  5,  and 


CHAP.  XVIII.  1-30. 


143 


the  threat  of  childlessness  hag  already  been  ex- 
plained (prel.  note)  as  referring  to  the  legal  reck- 
oning of  the  children.  If  childlessness  could  be 
proved  to  be  a  natural  penally  of  the  inter-mar- 
riage of  near  blood  relations,  it  would  yet  wholly 
fail  to  apply  to  cases  of  simple  affinity,  to  which 
alone  the  penalty  is  attached  in  the  law.  Very 
striking  is  its  inapplicability  to  the  marriage  with 
a  brother's  wife,  for  if  such  a  natural  law  existed, 
the  Levirate  marriage  would  have  been  wholly 
useless. — F.  G.].  "But  no  less  is  there  another 
motive  here  implied  :  the  respect  of  kinship, 
(respectia  parentelse),  and  even  the  forcible  ex- 
pression uncover  the  nakedness  only  brings 
out  strongly  the  impiety  which,  in  such  cases, 
uncovers  the  fountains  of  its  own  life,  which  have 
been  hitherto  concealed  by  natural  respect." 
[See  this  point  discussed  at  length  in  Michaelis 
(Art.  107)  who  decides  that  it  had  no  influence 
in  the  Mosaic  legislation. — F.  G.].  "And  it  is 
plain,  that  with  this  unnatural  going  back  of 
men  to  the  roots  of  their  own  existence  in  this 
perversion  of  marriage,  which  is  the  specific 
school  of  the  future,  into  a  retrogressive  move- 
ment, it  must  immediately  follow  that  family  ego- 
ism will  be  at  the  same  time  ever  more  and  more 
cherished  ;  whereas  the  Theocracy,  as  the  reli- 
gion of  the  future,  seeks  to  establish  marriage 
on  the  basis  of  ever  new  conditions  of  love,  for 
the  purpose  of  building  up  a  most  intimate  fel- 
lowship in  the  human  family."*  [See  this  mo- 
tive also  discussed  and  rejected  by  Michaelis, 
Art.  106.— F.  G.]. 

"  It  is  well  known  that  the  hierarchy  and  its 
theology  has  not  only  not  explained  ideally  the 
law  of  the  marriages  of  relations,  has  not  only 
brought  it  over  unchanged  into  the  new  covenant ; 
but  has  also  stiffened  it  still  more  by  another  cal- 
culation of  the  degrees  of  relationship,  by  the 
addition  of  spiritual  relationships,  and  by  the 
prohibition  to  marry  the  sister  of  a  deceased 
sisterf  [wife].  In  regard  to  heathen  marriage 
customs,  see  Knobel,  p.  502  sqq. 

"  That  these  marriage  laws  of  Leviticus  form 
a  great  and  sharp  contrast  to  the  immoral  cus- 
toms of  the  Egyptians  and  the  Canaanites  ex- 
presses the  very  cause  of  this  legislation.  More 
in  regard  to  the  immorality  of  the  heathen  may 
be  found  in  Knobel,  p.  502  sqq.,  in  Keil,  p.  127 
sqq."  [Trans,  p.  413  note,  p.  418],  "and  espe- 
cially in  the  Jlklorisch-politiachen  Brie/en  of  I.  v. 
Raumer,  p.  29  sqq.  It  is  particularly  worthy 
of  notice  that  the  Arabian  morals  have  the  great- 
est resemblance  to  these  morals  of  the  law,  which 
may  perhaps  be  explained  from  their  Semitic 
character."  [But  the  legislation  of  the  Japhetic 
Greeks  and  Romans,  and  of  the  Hindoos  for  the 
higher  castes  was  even  more  strict,  as  noted  by 
Laiiire  below  ;  and  the  doom  pronounced  upon 
the  Canaanites  certainly  implies  that  their  sins 
were  such  as  might  be  recognized  in  any  nation 
by  the  light  of  nature. — F.  G.].  "  The  lascivious 
service  of  lust  of  the  Egyptians,  illustrated  by 

*  Comp.  Win?r,  Art.  Eke.  Herzog's  Renl-Enct/dopadii>,  Elie 
bei  dt  "  SebrSsrn  u.  a.  Lerica.  H.  Spoudlin,  Ueber  das  Ehe- 
verbtit  wegen  verwandtMcha.fi  und  das  verbrechen  des  Incestes,  Zu- 
rich, ls44.  The  same,  p.  i3:  "die  richtige  Begmndttng  von  An- 

t  "  Here  comes  into  notice  the  illiberal  article  in  the  Eng- 
lish law,  which  baa  already  produced  many  tragic  occur- 
rences." 


Ptolemy's  marriage  with  his  sister,  and  by  the 
history  of  Cleopatra,  would  appear  the  more  re- 
markable since  the  Egyptian  customs  and  reli- 
gion on  all  sides  admonished  of  death  ;  but  per- 
haps, indeed,  this  fact  depends  upon  a  connection 
between  sexual  pleasure  and  the  thought  of  death, 
as  e.  g.,  in  war  and  camp  life,  such  a  connection 
is  to  be  observed.  Besides  the  Arabian  customs, 
the  harsher  character  of  the  Hindoo  and  of  the 
Roman  legislation  is  to  be  particularly  noticed." 
Lange. 

Vers.  6-18.  The  phrase  uncover  the  naked- 
ness continued  to  be  used  to  express  sexual  in- 
tercourse through  many  ages.  Comp.  Ezek.  xvi. 
36  ;  xxiii.  18.  The  list  of  prohibited  degrees 
begins  appropriately  with  the  mother.  Her  na- 
kedness is  described  as  the  nakedness  of  thy 
father,  since  husband  and  wife  constitute   "one 

flesh,"  Gen.  ii.  24.  "  Strictly  speaking  m^'  H7j 
is  used  only  with  reference  to  the  wife  ;  but  in 
the  dishonoring  of  his  wife  the  honor  of  the  hus- 
band is  violated  also,  and  his  bed  defiled,  Gen. 
xlix.  4."  Keil.  Comp.  ver.  8.  Rosenmiiller  ex- 
plains the  phrase  as  meaning  the  nakedness  which 
is  (or  was)  under  the  control  of  the  father.  The 
Targ.  of  Jonathan  assumes  an  ellipsis,  and  ren- 
ders "  a  woman  shall  not  cohabit  with  herfather, 
nor  a  man  with  his  mother,"  which  is  neither 
agreeable  to  the  Hebrew,  nor  consistent  with  the 
fact  that  the  whole  law  is  addressed  to  the  man. 
Aben  Ezra,  as  quoted  by  Rosenmiiller,  well  ex- 
presses the  arrangement:  "  He  begins  with  the 
father,  who  precedes  the  son,  and  declares  for- 
bidden all  nakedness  of  the  father  and  mother  ; 
the  mother  is  placed  first,  theu  the  nakedness  of 
the  wife  of  the  father  who  is  not  the  mother, 
then  the  sister  who  is  the  daughter  of  the  father 
or  of  the  mother."  In  ver.  8  thy  father's  wife 
refers  to  another  wife  than  the  mother  of  the 
person  addressed,  and  the  term  wife  is  of  course 
broad  enough  to  include  the  concubine.  The 
sinfulness  of  this  act,  as  in  the  case  of  Reuben 
(Gen.  xxxv.  22;  xlix.  3,  4)  was  understood  long 
before  the  giving  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  conti- 
nued to  be  held  in  abomination  among  the  Gen- 
tiles in  Apostolic  days  (1  Cor.  v.  1 )  ;  neverthe- 
less it  was  one  of  the  crimes  of  which  Absalom 
was  deliberately  guilty  (2  Sam.  xvi.  22),  and  as 
already  noticed,  it  was  regularly  practised  by 
themonarchs  of  Persia. — Thy  father's  naked- 
ness is  used  in  the  same  sense  as  in  ver.  7. 
Connection  with  a  half-sister  on  either  side  being 
forbidden  in  ver.  9,  that  with  a  full  sister,  since 
she  might  be  described  as  a  half-sister  on  both 
sides,  is  doubly  forbidden.  The  expression  born 
at  home  or  born  abroad  has  been  variously 
interpreted.  The  true  sense  is  undoubtedly 
that  given  by  Rosenmiiller,  "agister  in  what- 
ever way  she  may  be  a  sister,  whether  of  the 
same  or  of  different  parents,  whether  legiti- 
mately or  illegitimately  born."  Thus  are  in- 
cluded the  daughter  of  either  father  or  mother 
by  either  a  previous  or  a  subsequent  marriage 
(and  these  cases  would  have  been  much  more 
frequent  under  laws  allowing  of  divorce  and  re- 
marriage), or  the  daughter  of  the  father  by  an- 
other wife;  also  illegitimate  children  of  either. 
The  marriage  of  Abraham  and  Sarah  is  often 
referred  to  as  an  instance  in  opposition  to  thia 


144 


LEVITICUS. 


law  ;  but  it  is  more  probable  that  the  word  sister 
is  there  used  in  the  broader  sense,  and  that  Sa- 
rah was  really  the  niece  of  Abraham.  Ver.  10. 
Theirs'  is  thine  own  nakedness. — Because 
of  their  direct  descent,  intercourse  with  them 
would  involve  a  sort  of  incest  with  one's  self. 
Of  course  this  would  apply  (1  fortiori  to  the  case 
of  a  daughter  which  is  not  specifically  men- 
tioned, but  is  included  in  ihe  prohibition  of  ver.  17. 
The  prohibition  of  ver.  11  of  the  half-sister  on  the 
father's  side  seems  already  included  in  the  broader 
one  of  ver.  9.  Various  explanations  have  been 
given  to  mark  a  difference  between  them,  among 
which  perhaps  the  best  is  that  of  Keil :  that  ver. 
9  treats  of  the  connection  of  a  son  by  a  second 
marriage  with  a  daughter  by  a  first  marriage, 
while  ver.  11  applies  to  the  connection  of  a  Bon 
by  a  first  marriage  with  a  daughter  by  a  subse- 
quent marriage  ;  but  this  seems  an  undue  limi- 
tation of  ver.  9.  Probably  there  was  at  the  time 
some  technical  use  of  the  terms  which  constitut  ed 
a  distinction  which  is  now  lost.  According  to 
Selden  (  Uxor  Hebr.  L.  I.  c.  4)  ver.  11  admits  of 
the  translation  "  The  nakedness  of  thy  father's 
wife's  daughter  (but  she  who  is  begotten  of  thy 
father  is  thy  sister)  thou  shalt  not  uncover  ;" 
thereby  meaning  to  forbid  connection  with  the 
daughter  of  a  step-mother,  and  marking  this  as 
a  distinct  prohibition  from  that  of  the  half-sister. 
Intercourse  with  an  aunt  on  either  the  father's 
or  the  mother's  side  is  forbidden  in  vers.  12,  13, 
on  the  principle  of  near  blood  relationship;  but 
there  is  no  prohibition  of  marriage  with  the  cor- 
responding relation  of  niece.  The  reason  of  this 
distinction  is  not  apparent.  According  to  Ex. 
vi.  20,  Moses  was  himself  the  offspring  of  the 
marriage  of  Amram  with  Jochebed,  his  paternal 
aunt.  This  would  indicate  that  this  prohibited 
degree  is  a  matter  of  the  Divine  statute  rather 
than  of  natural  law,  and  was  not  therefore  ne- 
cessarily extended  to  the  niece.  In  ver.  14  the 
prohibition  is  extended  to  the  wife  of  the  pater- 
nal uncle,  as  having  become  an  aunt  by  her  union 
with  the  uncle.  It  would  not  however  follow 
from  this  that  the  law  forbade  the  marriage  of  a 
woman  with  the  husband  of  her  aunt,  since  in 
consequence  of  the  dependence  of  the  family  upon 
the  male  in  the  Hebrew  polity,  the  correspond- 
ing relations  upon  the  mother's  side  stood  in  a 
less  intimate  relation  than  those  upon  the  fa- 
ther's. In  the  reverse  order,  however,  the  pro- 
hibition is  more  stringent  upon  the  woman  than 
upon  the  man,  since  a  woman  is  hereby  forbidden 
to  marry  her  husband's  nephew,  while  the  man 
is  not  forbidden  to  marry  his  wife's  niece.  The 
application  of  this  principle  to  ver.  15  would 
Beem  at  first  sight  to  lead  to  the  permission  of 
the  abominable  marriage  of  a  woman  with  her 
son-in-law  ;  but  this  is  guarded  against  by  ver. 
17.  The  prohibition  of  intercourse  with  a  bro- 
ther's wife  in  connection  with  the  more  ancient 
custom  of  the  levirate  marriage  has  already  been 
explained  in  the  preliminary  note.  It  is  parti- 
cularly to  be  observed  that  the  levirate  marriage 
only  took  place  in  case  the  brother  had  died 
childless,  and  she  was  still  his  wife  at  his  death, 
and  that  even  then  it  was  not  so  much  a  fresh 
marriage,  as  a  sort  of  continuance  of  the  mar- 
riage of  the  deceased  by  his  nearest  surviving 
representative.    The  prohibitions  of  ver.  17  have 


already  been  seen  to  complement  several  of  the 
other  prohibitions,  and  the  principle  which  for- 
bids the  connection  with  both  a  mother  and  a 
daughter  is  extended  also  to  the  grand-daughter. 
On  ver.  18  see  preliminary  note. 

"  Keeping  the  seed  sacred  to  its  purpose,  is  as 
has  been  said  the  fundamental  thought  of  our 
section.  Hence  over  against  the  physico-spiritual 
sins  against  nature  of  marriage  of  blood  relations 
is  placed,  as  the  other  extreme,  the  violation  of 
nature  in  desecrating  the  blood  with  beasts  or 
demons.  The  first  sin  is,  indeed,  a  violation  of 
nature  which  can  take  place  in  marriage  itself, 
the  transgressing  the  unapproachableness  of  a 
woman  in  her  sickness.  But  a  sickness  in  sexual 
relation  is  certainly  the  condition  of  menstru- 
ation, ver.  19."  [After  the  list  of  prohibited 
degrees,  whether  of  consanguinity  or  of  affinity, 
naturally  follows  the  prohibition  of  other  unlaw- 
ful conditions  of  sexual  intercourse.  First  is 
mentioned  that  of  which  there  was  the  greatest 
danger  of  violation.  The  feminine  unclean- 
ness  here  named  is  the  mj,  including  both  the 
monthly  uncleanness  (xv.  33)  and  the  unclean- 
ness  after  childbirth  (xii.  2).  The  violation  of 
this  is  enumerated  by  Ezek.  (xviii.  6  ;  xxii.  10) 
among  sins  of  a  most  serious  character.  Next 
comes  adultery  (ver.  20),  then  the  giving  of  the 
seed  to  Molech  (ver.  21),  and  finally  sodomy 
(ver.  22),  and  bestial  sins  (ver.  23).— F.  G.]. 
"  The  second  sin  is  adultery  :  it  defiles  a  man  in 
three  and  four  ways,  since  he  commits  treason 
against  the  teleology  of  his  seed,  against  his  per- 
sonal dignity,  against  the  sacrifice  of  his  plea- 
sure, and  against  his  betrayed  neighbor.  On 
the  punishment  of  adultery  see  Knobel,  p.  506." 
[Both  parties  were  to  be  put  to  death,  xx.  10; 
Deut.  xxii.  22;  Comp.  Jno.  viii.  5.  Knobel  fur- 
ther notes  that  other  nations  of  antiquity  were 
less  rigorous  ;  they  generally  punished  the  adul- 
terer with  a  fine  (Diod.  12,  21),  but  also  more 
severely.  Among  the  Egyptians  the  adulterer 
must  submit  to  a  thousand  blows  and  have 
his  nose  cut  off  (Diod.  1,  78) ;  among  the  Indians 
both  pecuniary  and  bodily  punishment,  as  well 
as  exile  and  death  were  commanded  (Manu  8, 
352  ss.)  ;  among  the  Greeks,  the  woman  suffered 
repudiation  and  infamy,  while  the  adulterer  could 
be  put  to  death  or  receive  from  the  court  a  se- 
vere bodily  punishment  (Wachsmuth  II.  1,  p. 
272).  Knobel  further  mentions  the  punishments 
among  the  Moslems  and  Ihe  modern  Orientals. — 
F.  G.j.  "The  third  sin  is  the  sacrifice  to  Mo- 
lech, here  manifestly  infanticide  and  falling  away 
from  the  name  of  Jehovah  at  once.  Knobel : 
"  By  this  is  meant  not  a  mere  lustration  by 
means  of  fire,  but  an  actual  burning.  See  Mo- 
vers, Phonizitr  I.,  p.  328  sqq.  On  the  Molech 
sacrifice,  see  the  same,  p.  500.  Opposed  to  this, 
the  deductions  of  Keil,  that  the  expression  here 
indicates  only  a  lustration  or  a  februation  (P. 
130,  131  [Trans,  p.  416,  417])  can  hardly  be 
maintained."  [The  precise  purport  of  this  pro- 
hibition is  very  uncertain.  In  Deut.  xii.  31,  it 
is  mentioned  as  a  sin  of  the  Canaanites  that 
"  even  their  sons  and  their  daughters  they  have 
burnt  in  the  fire  to  their  gods,"  and  the  Israel- 
ites are  warned  against  imitating  them.  It  is 
generally  assumed  by  commentators  that  the 
deity  there  intended  is  Molech,  and  that  by  seed 


CHAP.  XVIII.  1-30. 


145 


in  our  passage  is  meant  children,  and  that  thus 
both  refer  to  the  same  thing.  But  here  we  have 
no  mention  of  fire  (see  Textual  Note  9),  and  it  is 
at  least  doubtful  if  seed  here  means  offspring. 
Although  explanations  are  offered  by  the  com- 
mentators of  such  an  ahrupt  change  of  subject, 
yet  it  is  far  more  in  accordance  with  the  context 
and  the  general  purpose  of  the  chapter  to  un- 
derstand seed  here  simply  of  the  semen.  Too 
little  is  now  known  of  the  worship  of  Molech  at 
this  very  ancient  date  to  determine  precisely  the 
meaning  of  the  expression.  It  is  noticeable, 
however,  that  there  is  no  other  prohibition  of 
the  foul  habit  of  masturbation,  for  which  there 
seems  to  be  need  ;  may  it  not  be  conjectured  that 
this  act  was  known  as  "  giving  one's  seed  to  Mo- 
lech," and  was  associated  with  the  practices  of 
idolatry  ?  The  sin,  whatever  it  was,  connected 
itself  with  the  worship  of  a  fals«  god  as  is  shown 
by  the  clause  neither  shalt  thou  profane  the 
name  of  thy  God.  It  was  not  only  itself  to 
be  punished  with  death  by  stoning;  but  punish- 
ment was  also  denounced  against  any  one  who  saw 
the  sin  committed  and  did  not  expose  it  (xx.  2- 
6).  If  the  above  conjecture  is  right,  it  was  very 
natural  that  in  after  times  this  custom  should 
have  advanced,  as  it  did,  to  the  actual  burning 
of  children  as  a  sacrifice  to  Molech  (2  Ki.  xxiii. 
10;  Ezek.  xvi.  20,  2!,  etc.),  though  even  this  is 
explained  by  many  of  merely  passing  the  chil- 
dren between  two  fires. — P.  G.].  "  The  fourth 
sin  is  the  especially  abominable  sin  of  Sodom, 
Pcederastia,  for  which  the  Canaanites  at  last  re- 
ceived the  sentence,  that  their  land  should  "spue 
them  out;"  nature  herself  could  no  more  endure 
them.  See  1  Kings,  Commentary  p.  56"  [Trans. 
p.  75  ?]  "  The  fifth  sin  is  the  acme  of  abomina- 
bleness,  conjunction  with  a  beast,  and  yet  this 
was  something  that  occurred,  or  else  the  law 
would  not  have  spoken  of  it.  According  to  He- 
rodotus and  Pindar,  women  at  Mendes  let  them- 
selves be  mounted  by  a  he-goat  (Herod.  2,  46, 
etc.)."  Knobel.  See  similar  examples  given  by  the 
same."  [The  fearful  prevalence  of  Sodomy, 
(which  takes  its  name  from  a  Canaanitish  city), 
in  the  Rome  of  Apostolic  days  is  evident  from 
Rom.  i.  24,  27,  as  well  as  from  the  classic  au- 
thors. The  practice  of  it  seems  to  have  been 
inveterate  among  the  Hebrews,  1  Kings  xiv.  24. 
"  Ver.  22.  The  ancient  Persian  law  sternly  con- 
demned this  offence  (  Vendid.  viii.  10  ap,  Knobel). 
Also  the  Hindoo  law  (Menu  xi.  174,  175),  and 
the  Koran,  vii.  78-80.  Ver.  23.  The  story  of 
Pasiphse  may  furnish  proof  that  the  early  Greeks 
abhorred  this  offence.  The  Hindoo  law  punishes 
it  severely  Menu  xi.  17,  Gentoo  laws,  p.  280.  The 
Moslem  law  condemns  it,  Hedaya  II.,  p.  27." 
Clark. — F.  G.].  "  The  following  inculcation  of 
these  prohibitions,  vers.  24-30,  contains  the  most 
expressive  apology  for  the  conquest  of  Canaan 
on  the  part  of  the  Israelites;  and  that  this  was 
no  partiality  of  Jehovah,  is  plain  from  the  fact 
that  He  threatens  the  Israelites  with  entirely  tke 
same  punishment  in  case  they  should  sin  in  the 
same  way,  and  moreover,  that  He  enacts  the 
death  penalty  for  the  single  offender."   Lange. 

The  poetic  representation  of  the  land  as  vomit- 
ing out  its  inhabitants  is  founded  upon  a  truth 
which  required  that  the  laws  of  this  chapter 
should  be  made  binding  upon  the  stranger  that 


sojourneth  among  you  as  well  as  upon  the 
Israelites  themselves  (ver.  26).  The  land  which 
the  ancestors  of  Israel  were  not  allowed  to  pos- 
sess, "  because  the  iniquity  of  the  Amorites  was 
not  yet  full"  (Gen.  xv.  16),  had  now  become 
filled  with  a  mass  of  festering  moral  corruption. 
Its  inhabitants  were  to  be  cast  out  and  the  holy 
people  planted  in  their  stead.  It  could  not  be 
allowed  that  "the  stranger"  should  again  intro- 
duce the  pollutions  which  were  now  being  so  se- 
verely punished. 

The  only  punishment  here  threatened  for  the 
violation  of  these  precepts  is  first  the  national 
one,  in  case  the  sins  became  national,  of  being 
treated  as  their  predecessors  had  been  ;  and  se- 
condly, the  individual  punishment  for  individual 
offenders  (ver.  29),  they  shall  be  cut  on"  from 
among  their  people.  They  were  to  be  ex- 
communicated as  violators  of  the  holiness  re- 
quired of  the  covenant  people.  Israel,  however, 
constituted  a  state  as  well  as  a  church,  and  later, 
in  ch.  xx.,  the  civil  punishment  of  these  crimes 
is  fully  prescribed.  Here  the  legislator  speaks 
of  the  sin  rather  than  of  the  crime,  and  conse- 
quently of  the  spiritual  rather  than  the  civil 
penalty. 

The  preterites  of  ver.  25  XJXjrt  (A.  V.  vomit- 
eth  out)  and  ver.  28  i"INp  (A.  V.  spued  out) 
must  necessarily  be  determined  in  their  sense  by 
the  whole  context,  and  especially  by  the  rnt^O 
=  lam  casting  out,  of  ver.  24.  The  whole  trans- 
action is  represented  as  one  in  progress,  as  in 
xx.  23  (where  the  same  participle  is  used),  and 
from  any  fair  consideration  of  these  chapters  in 
themselves  it  would  be  impossible  to  infer  that 
the  casting  out  of  the  Canaanites  was  already  an 
accomplished  fact.  It  is  therefore  quite  unne- 
cessary to  speak  of  these  preterites  (Keilj,  as 
prophetic. 

DOCTRINAL  AND    ETHICAL. 

I.  We  have  here  set  forth  (ver.  5)  the  prin- 
ciple which  St.  Paul  declares  (Rom.  x.  5;  Gal. 
iii.  12)  to  be  the  fundamental  principle  of  the 
whole  law, — that  salvation  depends  upon  obedi- 
ence. On  this  ground  he  shows  that  man  can 
never  attain  justification,  since  it  is  impossible 
for  him  to  offer  a  perfect  obedience.  The  law 
by  a  practical  demonstration  of  this  fact  becomes 
"  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  to  Christ."  Ne- 
vertheless, "  the  law  is  holy,  and  the  command- 
ment holy,  and  just,  and  good"  (Rom.  vii.  12), 
and  the  faith  which  leads  to  salvation  is  dead 
without  the  earnest  effort  at  obedience.  Hence 
God  sets  forth  His  laws  as  that -which  if  a  man 
do  he  shall  live  in  them,  and  it  has  ever 
proved  that  the  path  of  obedience  is  the  path  of 
life  in  every  sense. 

II.  "  The  family  relationship  is  itself  ordained 
by  God.  It  is  the  birthplace  of  the  children  of 
God — the  first  school,  and  generally  the  source 
of  all  chastity  and  good  manners.  Any  injury 
inflicted  on  it  would  undermine  the  temporal  and 
eternal  welfare  both  of  individuals  and  of  the 
people.  In  this  lies  the  abomination  of  incest. 
This  is  the  reason  of  that  natural  horror  of  it 
which  God  has  implanted  in  us.  This  is  the  rea- 
son that,  among  all  nations,  marriage  within  cer- 


146 


LEVITICUS. 


tain  degrees  was  forbidden,  although  the  laws 
of  the  most  moral  nations  wavered  in  respect  to 
the  exact  boundaries.  .  .  .  Because  this  was  the 
reason  of  the  prohibited  degrees,  we  see  also  why, 
in  the  family  of  the  first  men,  when  there  was 
no  difference  between  family  and  people,  bro- 
thers and  sisters  might  marry  without  sin."  0. 
von  Gerlach. 

III.  The  Canaanites  were  to  be  punished  for 
their  offences  against  the  marriage  law.  But 
they  would  not  have  been  guilty  if  they  had  had 
no  knowledge  that  what  they  did  was  wrong, 
(Rom.  iv.  15;  v.  13).  It  is  therefore  evident 
that  there  must  be  a  natural  law  or  a  tradition 
of  primeval  revelation  which  should  have  en- 
abled them  to  recognize  the  sinfulness  of  their 
customs. 

IV.  Although  the  Mosaic  legislation  recognizes 
polygamy  and  divorce  on  trivial  grounds,  yet 
Bt ill  it  cannot  be  arrayed  as  in  opposition  to  the 
higher  law  of  Christian  purity.  On  the  con- 
trary, like  the  laws  of  revenge  and  many  others, 
these  laws  were  restrictions  leading  the  people 
as  they  were  able  to  bear  it  towards  the  higher 
law  of  the  Gospel.  That  they  fell  short  of  this 
was  simply  because  God  suffered  it  to  be  so  tem- 
porarily "because  of  the  hardness  of  men's 
hearts." 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

"The  chapter  about  the  forbidden  degrees  of 
marriage  has  in  its  immediate  form  a  much 
greater  meaning  for  dogmatics,  morals,  and  the 
legal  and  ecclesiastical  ordinance  of  marriage, 
than  it  has  for  homiletics.  The  New  Testament 
explanation  and  application  of  this  law  is  so 
great  a  subject  and  work,  that  here  we  must  re- 
fer to  the  literature  relating  thereto.  But  indi- 
rectly, these  laws  are  a  treasury  also  for  homi- 
letics. By  the  prohibition  of  the  marriage  of 
relations,  God  ever  forms  new  sets  of  relation- 
ships. By  this  He  brings  to  view  the  universal 
relationship  which  lies  upon  the  foundation  of 
human  mauifoldness  and  diversity.  He  mani- 
fests harmony  in  the  contrasts  of  genealogies. 
He  freshens  anew  the  duty  of  love  in  a  thousand 
ways  ;  and  freshens,  too,  marriage  in  a  thousand 
ways  through  love.     Sexual  love,  in  its  dignity, 


is  here  hallowed  through  the  law.  Strangers 
and  aliens  become,  by  this  divine  ordinance,  re- 
latives, brothers  and  friends;  a  holy  web  of 
love,  in  spite  of  single  desecrations,  spreads  from 
town  to  town,  from  laud  to  land,  from  people  to 
people.  The  egoism  of  family,  rank,  and  class, 
is  a  kind  of  heathenism  which  this  law  combats 
with  a  prefigurative  force,  and  Christianity  meets 
by  its  consecration  of  the  state  of  betrothal  on 
the  foundation  of  Christian  brotherly  love  and 
universal  philanthropy.  The  expression  of  these 
prohibitions  of  marriage  designates  the  trans- 
gressions without  any  anxious  fear  except  to  op- 
pose with  strong  words  the  lack  of  fear  in  life, 
and  to  create  a  holy  fear  before  the  sources  of 
life,  the  mysterious  darkness  of  the  continuous 
creation  of  man.  When  the  ideality  of  the  legal 
life  fails,  there  is  made  prominent  the  marked 
unhallowed  nakedness  and  rudeness  of  the  sexual 
relations.  The  various  forms  aud  degrees  of 
guilt  are  to  be  noticed.  Over  against  the  offences 
against  the  family  life  in  too  near  relationship, 
come  the  horrors  of  the  sexual  crimes  against 
nature  (ver.  21  sqq.  Comp.  Rom.  i.).  The  fla- 
grant violation  of  nature  is  emphasized  by  the 
threat  that  the  violated  nature,  the  horrified 
land,  would  itself  undertake  the  punishment, 
and  spue  out  such  sinners.  But  the  positive 
punishments  also  were  not  to  be  omitted  (chap, 
xx.).  And  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  Jeho- 
vah introduces  and  closes  these  commands  with 
the  explanation  of  His  name  Jehovah,  His  holy 
personality.  The  establishment  of  personal  dig- 
nity in  a  kingdom  of  true  personal  continuance 
in  love,  is  the  purpose  of  the  law."   Lange. 

Besides  its  moral  and  social  bearings,  the  Le- 
vitical  law  has  another  and  most  important  as- 
pect. It  has  been  found  historically  that  all 
great  deviations  from  the  faith  bear  fruit,  sooner 
or  later,  in  sensual  sins;  and  conversely,  all  re- 
laxation of  the  law  of  sexual  purity  has  sustained 
itself  by  the  denial  or  perversion  of  fundamental 
doctrine.  The  Levitical  law  was  therefore  a 
safeguard  of  the  truth,  and  herein  men  received 
an  essential  part  of  their  training,  not  merely 
for  the  high  morality,  but  also  for  the  high  reli- 
gious truth  of  the  Gospel.  We  see  at  Corinth 
how  danger  to  the  one  went  hand  in  hand  with 
danger  to  the  other. 


THIRD    SECTION. 
Holiness  of  Conduct  towards  God  and  Man. 
Chap.  XIX.  1-16. 
1,  2     And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  all  the  congregation1  or 
the  children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  Ye  shall  be  holy  :  for  I  the  Lord  your 
God  am  holy. 
3       Ye  shall  fear  every  man  his  mother,2  and  his  father,  and  keep  my  sabbaths :     I 
am  the  Lord  your  God. 

TEXTUAL  AND    GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  2.  rHl?  ■=  congregation  is  omitted  by  3  MSS.  and  the  LXX. 

»  Ver.  3.  In  the  LXX.,  Vulg.,  and  Syr.,  the  order  ia  reversed  to  his  father  and  his  mother.    The  Sam  and  Onk.  follow  the 
Hebrew. 


CHAP.  XIX.  1-37.  147 

4  Turn  ye  not  unto  idols,3  nor  make  to  yourselves  molten  gods  :  1  am  the  Lord 
your  God. 

5  And  if  ye  offer  a  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings  unto  the  Lord,  ye  shall  offer  it  at 

6  your  own  will  [offerings,  unto  the  Lord  ye  shall  offer  it  for  your  acceptance4].  It 
shall  be  eaten  the  same  day  ye  offer  it,  and  on  the  morrow  :  and  if  ought  remain 

7  until  the  third  day,  it  shall  be  burnt  in  the  fire.     And  if  it  be  eaten  at  all  on  the 

8  third  day,  it  is  abominable ;  it  shall  not  be  accepted.  Therefore  every  one  that 
eateth5  it  shall  bear  his  iniquity,  because  he  hath  profaned  the  hallowed  thing  of 
the  Lord  :  and  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  people. 

9  And  when  ye  reap  the  harvest  of  your  land,  thou  shalt  not  wholly  reap  the  cor- 
10  ners  of  thy  field,  neither  shalt  thou  gather  the  gleanings  of  thy  harvest.     And  thou 

shalt  not  glean  thv  vineyard  [fruit  garden6],  neither  shalt  thou  gather  every  grape 
[the  scattered  fruit']  of  thy  vineyard   [fruit  garden6]  ;  thou  shalt  leave  them  for 
the  poor  and  stranger :  I  am  the  Lord  your  God. 
11,12     Ye  shall  not  steal,  neither  deal  falsely,  neither  lie  one  to  another.     And  ye 
shall  not  swear  by  my  name  falsely,  neither  shalt  thou   profane  the  name  of  thy 

13  God  :  I  am  the  Lord.  Thou  shalt  not  defraud  [oppress8]  thy  neighbour,  neither9 
rob  him  :  the  wages  of  him  that  is  hired  shall  not  abide  with  thee  all  night  until 
the  morning. 

14  Thou  shalt  not  curse  the  deaf,  nor  put  a  stumbling-block  before  the  blind,  but 
shalt  fear  thv  God :  I  am  the  Lord. 

15  Ye  shall  do  no  unrighteousness  in  judgment :'°  thou  shalt  not  respect  the  person 
of  the  poor,  nor  honour  the  person  of  the  mighty  :  but  in  righteousness  shalt  thou 
judge  thy  neighbour. 

16  thou  shalt  not  go  up   and  down  as  a  talebearer  among  thy  people :"  neither12 

17  shalt  thou  stand  against  the  blood  of  thy  neighbour  :  I  am  the  Loud.  Thou  shalt 
not 'hate  thy  brother  in  thine  heart :  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  rebuke  thy  neighbour, 

18  and  not  suffer  sin  upon  him  [and  not  bear  sin  on  his  account13].  Thou  shalt  not 
avenge,  nor  bear  any  grudge  against  the  children  of  thy  people,  but  thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbour  as  thyself:  I  am  the  Lorl. 

19  Ye  shall  keep  my  statutes.  Thou  shalt  not  let  thy  cattle  gender  with  a  diverse 
kind  :M  thou  shalt  not  sow  thy  field  with  mingled  [diverse15]  seed  :  neither  shall  a 
garment  mingled  [a  diverse  garment15]  of  linen  and  woollen16  come  upon  thee. 

*  Ver.  4.  D'VSx  =  inania  numina,  Rosen.    It  is  formed  from  7X  with  a  termination  expressive  of  contempt. 
4  Ver.  5.   DDJil;  =  for  your  acceptance.    See  Textual  Note  6  on  i.  3. 

6  Ver.  8.  Th'e'Heb.has  the  plural  form  1'SjN,  hut  the  Sam.  and  other  versions  have  the  sing,  as  in  the  following  verb 

t  : 
and  noun. 

«  Ver.  10.  D"0  is  generally  a  vineyard,  but  also  (Judg.  jv.  7)  an  olive  yard.     It  is  "  a  field  or  yard  of  the  nobler  plants 

and  trees,  cultivated  in  the  manner  of  a  garden  or  orchard,"  Qesen.  It  is  doubtless  here  used  in  its  broadest  sense,  and  the 
vineyard  of  the  A.  V.  is  therefore  too  restricted.  _ 

'  Ver.  10.  012  =  <*"<  which  "  scattered,  and  hence  meaning  here  both  the  fallen  fruit  (Chald.,  1  ulg.,  Syr.),  and  also 

the  single  berries  if  the  olive  and  the  vine  not  gathered  with  the  harvest. 

8  Ver.  13.  pitfj?n.    Ver.  11  forbids  sins  of  craft  and  falsehood  against  one's  neighbor ;  this,  sins  of  violence  and  open 
oppression.    The  translation  given  is  that  of  the  A.  V.  in  Dent.  xxiv.  14. 

•  Ver.  13.  The  Heh.  xS  is  without  the  conjunction  which  is  supplied  in  40  MSS.  in  the  Sam.  and  the  LXX. 
10  Ver.  15.  The  conjunction  1  is  prefixed  in  7  MSS.,  the  Sain.,  LXX.,  and  Syr. 

u  Ver.  16.  TQ»3.    The  Sam.  and  68  MSS.  omit  the  \ 

IS  Ver.  16.  Here  again  the  Heb.  omits  the  conjunction  which  is  supplied  in  40  MSS.,  and  in  the  Syr. 

"  Ver.  17.  NOn    I'Vj?    NtyjVxSl  is  a  clause  the  meaning  of  which  has  been  much  questioned.    It  seems  certain, 

however,  that  Xt^J  cannot  mean  suffer,  (permit)  as  in  the  A.  V.,  but  must  mean  bear  as  in  the  margin.    The  marginal  for 

him  is  ambiguous,  and  it  is  better  therefore  to  use  the  more  explicit  on  his  account.  For  instances  of  precisely  the  same 
sense  of  these  words,  see  xxii.  9;  Nnm.  xviii.  32,  and  comp.  also  the  very  similar  expression  in  Pa.  Ixix.  8. 

»  Ver.  19.  3  MSS.,  the  Sam.,  LXX.,  and  Syr.,  prefix  the  conjunction. 

n>  Ver.  19.  B'xS3  (dual  from  nS3  =  separation)  occurs  only  in  this  verse  (three  times)  andin  the  parallel  Dent.  xxii. 

9,  but  is  frequent  in  'the  Talmud.  It  signifies  of  tm  l-inds,  heterogeneous.  The  translation  of  the  A.  V.  at  its  first  occurrence 
in  the  ver.  diverse,  is  good,  and  should  by  all  means  be  retained  in  the  other  clauses,  both  for  consistency's  sake,  and  for  the 
force  of  the  command.     All  the  Semitic  versions  preserve  the  uniformity. 

"  Ver.  19.  \iOV\V  occurs  only  here  and  in  Deut.  xxii.  11,  where  it  is  explained  "  of  woolen  and  linen  together.      Its 

etvmology  is  obscure.  See  the  Lexicons  and  Bochart,  Jliernz.  I.,  lib.  LT.,  c.  35,  p.  545,  ed.  Rosen.  It  is  probably  an  Egyp. 
tmn  word',  although  not  yet  satisfactorily  explained.  The  Chald.  retains  the  word,  and  the  LXX.  translates  ki^SijAok = 
tpurious,  adulterated,  probably  by  a  mere  conjecture.  Rosenmuller  quotes  Forster  as  explaining  it  <•!  a  o.-tly  1,-yptiau 
dress  woven  in  various  figures  of  plants  and  animals  in  colors,  having  a  symbolical  idolatrous  signification.    See  Com. 


148  LEVITICUS. 


20  And  whosoever  lieth  carnally  with  a  woman  that  is  a  bondmaid,  betrothed1'  to 
an  husband,  and  not  at  all  redeemed,  nor  freedom  given  her ;  she  shall  be  scourged 
[there  shall  be  punishment18],  they  shall  not  be  put  to  death,  because  she  was  not 

21  free.     And  he  shall  bring  his  trespass  offering  unto  the  Lord,  unto  the  door  of  the 

22  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  even  a  ram  for  a  trespass  offering.  And  the  priest 
shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  with  the  ram  of  the  trespass  offering  before  the 
Lord  for  his  sin  which  he  hath  done :  and  the  sin  which  he  hath  done  shall  be 
forgiven  him. 

23  And  when  ye  shall  come  into  the  land,  and  shall  have  planted  all  manner  of 
trees  for  food,  then  ye  shall  count  the  fruit  thereof  as  uncircumcised  :19  three  years 

24  shall  it  be  as  uncircumcised  to  you  :  it  shall  not  be  eaten  of.     But  in  the  fourth 

25  year  all  the  fruit  thereof  shall  be  holy  to  praise20  the  Lord  withal.  And  in  the  fifth 
year  shall  ye  eat  of  the  fruit  thereof,  that  it  may  yield21  unto  you  the  increase 
thereof:  I  am  the  Lord  your  God. 

26  Ye  shall  not  eat  any  thing  with  the  blood  :22  neither23  shall  ye  use  enchantment, 

27  nor  observe  times.     ^Ye  shall  not  round  the  corners  of  your  heads,  neither  shalt 

28  thou  24  mar  the  corners  of  thy"  beard.  Ye  shall  not  make  any  cuttings  in  your 
flesh  for  the  dead,  nor  print  any  marks  upon  you :  I  am  the  Lord. 

29  Do  not  prostitute  thy  daughter,  to  cause  her  to  be  a  whore ;  lest  the  land  fall  to 
whoredom,  and  the  land  become  full  of  wickedness. 

30  Ye  shall  keep  my  sabbaths,  and  reverence  my  sanctuary  :  I  am  the  Lord. 

31  Regard  not  them  that  have  familiar  spirits,  neither  seek  after  wizards  to  be  de- 
filed by  them  :  I  am  the  Lord  your  God. 

32  Thou  shalt  rise  up  before  the  hoary  head,  and  honour  the  face  of  the  old  man, 
and  fear  thy  God  :  I  am  the  Lord. 

33  And  if  a  stranger  sojourn  with  thee25  in  your  land,  ye  shall  not  vex  [oppress26]  him. 
3-4  But  [omit  but27]  the  stranger  that  dwelleth  with  you  shall  be  unto  you  as  one  born 

among  you,  and  thou  shalt  love  him  as  thyself;  for  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land 
of  Egypt :  I  a»)i  the  Lord  your  God. 
35       Ye  shall  do  no  unrighteousness  in  judgment,  in  meteyard,  in  weight,  or  in  mea- 

1T  Ver.  20.  J13^nj  Niph.  from  rpn  =  to  bar  off,  to  set  apart.  There  seems  no  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  the  test  of 
the  A.  V.,  and  the  margin  is  therefore  unnecessary. 

18  Ver.  20.  PITin  j"np3.  This  word  is  off.  Key.,  but  there  seems  little  doubt  of  its  meaning,  investigation,  and  then 
punishment.  Authorities  are  much  divided  on  the  question  whether  both  partiee,  or  only  the  woman,  was  to  be  scourged. 
The  LXX.,  Vulg.,  and  Syr.,  are  clear  for  the  former,  while  the  Sam.  applies  it  only  to  the  man.  In  the  uncertainty  it  is 
better  to  retain  the  indefiniteness  of  the  Heb.asin  the  marg.  of  the  A.  V.  The  Sam.  reading  is  remarkable  17  (THD  j"np3 

=  he  shall  be  punished,  and  then,  in  the  6ing.  .TVDV  N  7  =  he  shall  not  die.  This  gives  a  sense  agreeing  excellently  with 
the  reason  assigned  because  she  was  not  free,  and  hence  the  act  did  not  legally  constitute  adultery  which  was 
punishable  with  death. 

»  Ver.  23.  "  The  singular  suffix  in  ljlSlt'  "  [and  also  in  V13]  "  refers  to  73,  and  the  verb  7~\j,'  is  a  denom.  from 
i  t  :  t  :  ■ 

ri7"l>*,  to  make  into  a  foreskin,  to  treat  as  uncircumcised,  i.  e.,  to  throw  away  as  unclean  or  uneatable."  Keil.    The  LXX. 

v  :  t 
rendering  nept.Kadapi.elTe   rnv  aKaOapaiav  ouTou  =  ye  shall  purge  auay  its  uncleanness  expresses  very  well   the  general 
sense.  ,    , 

30  Ver.  24.  □,7l7H  occurs  only  here  and  in  Judg.ix.  27.     In  the  latter  place  it  seems  to  mean  merry-making  feasts  to 

idols,  and  Josephus  (Ant.  iv.  8,  19)  understands  the  law  to  be  that  the  fruit  of  the  fourth  year  should  be  carried  to  the  pla<-e 
..I  th.  Sum  tuury,  and  there  used  in  a  holy  feast  with  friends  and  the  poor.  But  the  following  verse  seems  so  clearly  to 
forbid  the  owner's  partaking  of  it  before  the  fifth  year  that  it  would  be  unsafe  to  change  the  translation.  The  marg.  of 
the  A.  V.  holiness  of  praises  to  the  Lord  does  not  convey  any  distinct  idea.  The  idea  of  Murphy  a  praise  offering  is  hardly 
sustained  by  the  text.  The  true  sense  is  probably  that  incorporated  into  the  Targ.  Onk.  it  shall  he  consecrated  to  those  offer- 
ing praises  before  the  Lord,  i.  e.,  it  was  to  be  given  to  the  Lord  through  Uis  priests,  and  used  by  them  in  leasts. 

21  Ver.  25.  For  fl"D'inS  that  it  may  yield,  the  Sam.,  followed  by  the  Vulg.,  reads  n'DSn  '  for  eolltcting  (in 
storehouses)  the  produce. 

22  Ver.  2G.  □in~Sl*.  The  LXX.  must  have  read  *1  instead  of  1  to  sustain  the  version  hrl  tCiv  opcW,  and  some 
critics  would  adopt  this  to  avoid  the  peculiarity  of  the  construction  of  7J>,  considering  it  justified  by  the  frequency  of  the 
practice  in  connection  with  Idolatrous  feasts  (comp.  nos.  iv.  13).  But  a  mis-reading  of  the  LXX.  is  not  a  sufficient  ground 
for  a  change  of  the  text ;  for  the  construction  of  7T?  see  Ex.  xii.  8,  and  comp.  Textual  Note  *  on  ii.  2. 

23  Vers.  26,  27.  In  both  places  the  Sam.,  one  or  two  MSS.,  and  the  LXX.,  supply  the  conjunction. 

!*  Ver.  27.  The  Sam.  and  most  of  the  Ancient  Versions  put  the  verb  and  the  pronoun  in  the  plural  in  accordance  with 
the  previous  clause. 

25  Ver*.  33.  The  Sam.  and  versions  have  the  plural. 

2«  Ver.  33.  The  marg.  of  the  A.  V.  expresses  the  sense  of  IJin  better  than  the  text. 

17  Yer.  34.  There  is  no  occasion  for  the  insertion  of  the  but  of  the  A.  V. 


CHAP.  XIX.  1-37 


149 


36  sure.     Just  balances,  just  weights,29  a  just  ephali,  and  a  just  hin,  shall  ye  have  :    I 

37  am  the  Lord  your  God,  which  brought  you  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  Therefore 
shall  ye  observe  all  my  statutes,  and  all  my  judgments,  and  do  them:  I  am  the 
Lord. 

»  Ver.  36.  The  marg.  of  the  A.  V.  stones  is  unnecessary,  that  being  merely  the  primary  sense  of  px,  while  weight  is 
the  fully  established  derivative  sense. 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

With  this  chapter  begins  a  new  Parashah  of 
the  law  extending  to  n.  27.  The  parallel 
Haplilarah  from  the  prophets  is  Ezek.  xx.  2-20, 
recounting  the  disobedience  of  Israel  in  the  wil- 
derness to  the  commands  of  this  chapter  and 
their  consequent,  punishment;  and  the  close  of 
Amos  ix.  7-15,  denouncing  the  punishment  and 
foretelling  the  final  restoration  of  God's  people 
— a  prophecy  applied  by  S.  James  (Acts  xv.  16, 
17)  to  the  gathering  in  of  the  Gentiles  to  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

"  This  remarkable  chapter  is  perhaps  the 
most  comprehensive,  the  most  varied,  and  in 
seme  respects  the  most  important  section  of 
Leviticus,  if  not  of  the  Pentateuch;  it  was  by 
the  ancient  Jews  regarded  as  an  epitome  of  the 
whole  Law  ;  it  was  adopted  and  paraphrased  by 
the  best  gnomic  writers,  such  as  Pseudo-Phocy- 
lides;  and  it  has  at  all  times  been  looked  upon 
as  a  counterpart  of  the  Decalogue  itself."  Ka- 
lisch. 

It  treats  of  the  holiness  in  the  daily  life  and 
conversation  which  must  characterize  the  cove- 
nant people  of  a  holy  God.  This  basis  of  the 
commands  given  is  prominently  brought  forward 
at  the  opening  and  continually  kept  in  mind  by 
the  phrase  I  am  the  Lord  throughout.  This 
expresses  at  once  the  basis  of  the  command,  and 
the  goal  towards  which  the  Israelite  must  strive. 
It  is  as  difficult  to  arrange  these  laws  systemati- 
cally as  to  do  so  with  the  duties  of  the  daily 
life,  and  an  arrangement  which  would  be  sys- 
tematic from  one  point  of  view  would  not  be  bo 
from  another.  The  following  analysis  of  the 
chapter,  from  Murphy,  presents  a  somewhat 
different  view  from  that  given  by  Lange  below: 
"They  are  in  communion  with  God  (1-8),  in 
the  communion  of  saints  (9-22),  and  are  about 
to  be  in  a  land  of  holiness  (23-32),  and  visited 
by  strangers  (33-37).  And  each  of  these  rela- 
tions brings  out  a  series  of  duties  peculiar  to 
itself." 

Lange  says:  "We  hold  that  this  section,  as 
being  the  summing  up  of  the  laws  of  the  theo- 
cratic humanity,  is  quite  in  place,  as  a  contrast 
to  the  characteristics  of  the  heathen  inhumanity 
which  the  foregoing  chapter  has  displayed ;  and 
in  so  far  forth  comprises  in  no  part  anything 
repeated,  varying,  or  in  the  more  restricted 
sense  religious.  It  gives  the  characteristics  of 
the  consecrated  human  personality  in  the  theoc- 
racy, and  of  its  conduct  as  it  should  correspond 
with  the  holy  personality  of  Jehovah,  and  hence 
it  is  said  again  and  again:  I  am  Jehovah. 
From  this  constant  refrain  a  liturgy  of  religious 
humanity  could  be  unfolded.  First,  in  three- 
fold distinctness :  Ye  shall  be  holy,  ;'.  e.  hal- 
lowed personalities,  for  I  Jehovah  your  God 
am  holy,  and  ever  again  I  am  Jehovah  your 
God  (vers.  3,  4,  10,  25,  31,  34,  30),  or  I  am 


Jehovah  (vers.  12,  14,  16,  18,  28,  30,  32,  37). 
Evidently  these  statements  together,  as  the  cha- 
racteristics of  the  private  human  conduct,  stand 
in  connection  with  the  legislation  for  the  social 
humanity  in  the  section,  Ex,  xxi.-xxiii. 

"Disposition:  vers.  1,  2.  The  principle  of 
humanity:  Jehovah  the  Holy  One.  Vers.  3-8. 
True  and  false  piety.  Vers.  9-18.  Inwardly 
grounded  humanity.  Vers.  19-32.  Observance 
of  the  moral  laws  of  nature.  Vers.  33-37.  Ob- 
servance of  hospitality  and  the  duties  of  trade. 

"  The  first  theocratic  law  of  humanity  is  the 
root  of  all  that  follow,  the  law  of  piety.  And 
here  it  is  not  said:  'Father  and  mother,'  but 
mother  and  father ;  for  the  mother  precedes 
the  father  in  the  duty  of  mankind."  Words- 
worth says  in  reference  to  this  order:  "In  the 
former  chapter  God  had  displayed  the  evils  con- 
sequent on  the  abuse  of  woman,  and  here  He 
inculcates  reverence  towards  her,  as  the  founda- 
tion of  social  happiness."  This  is  the  fifth  com- 
mandment of  the  Decalogue  (Ex.  xx.  12),  and  is 
clearly  necessary  to  be  called  to  mind  here :  for 
as  the  family  is  the  basis  of  all  social  organiza- 
tion, so  is  reverence  to  parents  the  first  necessity 
of  family  order.  Next  follows  the  reiteration 
of  the  fourth  commandment  (Ez.  xx.  12)  as  the 
first  duty  of  man  beyond  the  immediate  respect 
due  from  him  to  those  from  whom  he  derives 
his  being.  The  great  prominence  everywhere 
given  in  Scripture  to  the  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath (comp.  e.  g.  Ez.  xx.  12,  13,  16,  20,  21,  24, 
being  the  portion  from  the  prophets  read  in  the 
synagogue  in  connection  with  this  chapter),  and 
the  universality  of  its  obligation  as  grounded 
upon  the  Divine  rest,  show  how  deeply  this  must 
enter  into  all  excellent  social  organization. 
These  two  precepts  are  here  coupled  together  as 
they  are  in  the  Decalogue,  and  they  are  the  only 
commands  given  there  in  positive  form.  They 
"  express  two  great  central  points,  the  first  be- 
longing to  natural  law,  and  the  second  to  posi- 
tive law,  in  the  maintenance  of  the  well-being 
of  the  social  body  of  which  Jehovah  was  the 
acknowledged  king."  Clark.  It  is  noticeable 
that  the  same  generality  which  is  given  to  the 
command  in  Ex.  by  the  use  of  the  sing,  is  here 
attained  also  by  the  use  of  the  plural;  for  the 
plural  is  not  to  be  understood  as  used  (Kalisch) 
tor  the  purpose  of  including  other  festivals  than 
the  weekly  day  of  rest. 

Ver.  4.  This  precept  includes  the  two  first 
commands  of  the  Decalogue.  The  order  of  com- 
mands in  this  chapter,  in  so  far  as  the  commands 
themselves  are  the  same,  is  different  from  that 
in  the  Decalogue,  because  there  the  starting 
point  is  from  God  Himself;  here  from  man  in 
his  family  and  social  relations.  In  regard  to 
this  precept,  Lange  says:  "If  the  heart  of  man 
becomes  benumbed  to  the  use  of  images  of  false 
gods  of  any  kind,  he  sinks  down  to  the  idols 
which  are  his  ideals,  and  becomes  as  dumb  and 


150 


LEVITICCS. 


unspiritual  as  they  are,  ver.  4.  All  gods  of  the 
heathen  are  Elilim,  nothingnesses,  Ps.  xcvi.  6; 
cxv.  8;  cxxxv.  18;  Isa.  xl.  18;  xliv.  10,  etc." 
Comp.  also  Deut.  xxvii.  15.  It  was  a  notion  of 
the  Rabbins  that  this  word  was  compounded  of 

7X,=no(,  and  7X=6W.  Comp.  1  Cor.  viii.  4; 
x.19. 

Vers.  6-8.  The  Legislator  now  turns  to  the 
especial  outward  act  of  communion  wilh  God  in 
the  peace  offering.  His  object  is  not  to  speak 
of  sacrifices  in  general,  nor  even  of  any  special 
kind  of  peace  offering;  therefore  the  distinc- 
tions of  vii.  11-21  are  not  referred  to.  The 
reference  is  rather  to  xvii.  3-7,  according  to 
which,  during  the  wilderness  life,  all  food  of 
sacrificial  animals  was  to  be  sanctified  by  the 
peace  offering.  So  here  all  holy  feasting  of 
communion  with  God  must  be  based  upon  a  sac- 
rifice for  their  acceptance,  and  must  be  treated 
according  to  the  commands  already  given.  The 
order  of  the  precepts  is  therefore  perfectly 
natural:  first,  filial  duty;  then  the  observance 
of  the  fundamental  divine  institution  for  society; 
next,  negatively,  the  entire  turning  away  from 
everything  that  could  come  into  rivalry  with 
God  ;  and  now  the  keeping  holy  of  the  appointed 
means  of  communion  with  Him.  After  this 
come  (9-18)  various  precepts  to  guard  the  holi- 
ness of  conduct  toward  one's  neighbor,  especially 
the  poor  and  distressed,  illustrated  by  one  com- 
mand of  detail  after  another  until  the  all  inclu- 
ding principle  is  announced,  thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself. 

Vers.  9,  10.  The  gatherer  of  his  harvest,  out 
of  the  abundance  which  God  had  given  him, 
must  have  a  generous  care  for  the  poor  and  the 
stranger;  the  poor,  as  those  unable  to  cultivate 
their  own  land,  or  who  had  been  obliged  to  sell 
it  until  the  next  year  of  Jubilee ;  and  the  stran- 
ger, as  those  who  by  the  organization  of  the 
Hebrew  commonwealih  could  have  no  possession 
of  land  in  their  country.  The  LXX.  and  the 
Syr.  interpret  stranger  of  proselytes,  and  are 
followed  by  some  Jewish  commentators ;  but 
such  restriction  is  plainly  at  variance  with  the 
whole  spirit  of  the  command.  The  same  precept 
is  repealed,  in  regard  to  the  grain  harvest,  in 
connection  with  the  feast  of  weeks  (xxiii.  22), 
and  more  generally  in  Deut.  xxiv.  10-22  with  a 
reminder  of  the  privations  and  bondage  they 
had  themselves  endured  in  Egypt.  The  story 
of  Ruth  is  a  beautiful  exemplification  of  the  ope- 
ration of  this  statute. 

Vcr.  11.  This  and  the  following  precepts  take 
the  usual  negative  form  of  statutory  law.  The 
eighth  commandment  is  here  joined  with  the 
offences  recounted  in  vi.  2-5  of  falsehood  and 
fraud  towards  others.  St.  Augustine  here  (Qu. 
08)  enters  at  length  into  the  casuistical  question 
of  the  jusiifiableness  of  lying  under  certain  pe- 
culiar circumstances,  citing  the  example  of  Ra- 
hab  among  others.  He  concludes  that  it  was 
not  her  lying,  as  such,  which  received  the 
divine  approbation,  but  her  desire  to  serve  God, 
which  indeed  prompted  her  lie.  However  this 
may  be,  it  is  plain  that  the  law  here  has  in  view 
not  extraordinary  and  exceptional  cases,  but  the 
ordinary  dealings  of  man  with  man.  Such  law 
ia  of  universal  obligation.     Comp.  Col.  iii.  9. 


Ver.  12  is  of  course  covered  by  the  third  com- 
mandment, but  is  not  coextensive  with  it,  since 
the  point  of  view  here  is  that  of  conduct  towards 
one's  neighbor.     Comp.  ch.  vi.  5- 

Vers.  13-17  relate  to  social  offences  of  different 
kinds,  common  enough  in  all  ages  and  lands, 
but  all  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  a  holy 
people.  Ver.  13  deals  with  faults  of  power, 
"  the  conversion  of  might  into  right."  The  par- 
ticulars mentioned  are  oppression  (comp.  xxv. 
17—43),  robbing,  and  undue  retention  of  wages. 
The  last  is  spoken  of  more  at  length  Deut.  xxiv. 
14,  15.  Comp,  Jas.  v.  4.  Ver.  14  mentions 
crimes  of  mean  advantage.  Comp.  Deut.  xxvii. 
18.  The  sense  is,  thou  shalt  not  curse  the 
deaf,  for  though  he  hears  not,  God  will  hear 
and  avenge;  and  so  of  the  blind,  God  sees  and 
cares  for  him.  Job  remembered  wilh  satisfac- 
tion that  in  his  prosperity  he  had  been  *'  eyes  to 
the  blind"  and  "feet  to  the  lame"  (Job  xxix. 
15).  The  precept  in  its  literal  sense  belongs  to 
all  times,  and  so  also  does  its  obvious  spiritual 
application,  Rom.  xiv.  13;  1  Cor.  viii.  9-13. 
Lange  characterizes  this  verse  as  the  "sanctifi- 
cation  of  the  human  dignity  of  the  infirm.''  Ia 
ver.  15  the  Legislator  turns  to  official  wrong, 
guarding  against  personal  influence  in  judgment 
from  whatever  source. — Respect  the  person 
of  the  poor  has  reference  not  only  to  pity  for 
him,  but  to  that  instinctive  tendency  to  sympa- 
thy with  the  weaker  side  which  still  has  such 
powerful  influence  with  the  modern  jury  in  the 
perversion  of  justice.  On  the  other  hand, 
honoring  the  person  of  the  mighty  repre- 
sents the  opposite  perversion,  perhaps  almost 
equally  common,  but  less  creditable  to  humanity. 
Vers.  16  and  17  forbid  offences  of  a  meaner 
kind.  On  ver.  16  Lange  says:  "Sanctity 
of  a  neighbor's  good  name,  and  especially  of  his 
life  and  blood.  Casting  aside  of  all  inhumane 
conduct,  all  ill-will,  as  manifested  in  malicious 
belittling,  blackening,  and  slandering,  and  espe- 
cially in  attempts  against  the  life  of  a  neighbor, 
whether  in  court  or  in  private  life."  The  Rab- 
bins, equally  with  the  Hindoo  laws,  are  particu- 
larly severe  upon  the  crime  of  tale-bearing. 
The  Targ.  Jonathan  paraphrases  the  clause,  "Do 
not  go  after  the  talc-benring  tongue,  which  is 
harsh  as  a  sword,  slaying  with  both  its  edges." 
The  latter  clause  of  ver.  16  is  sometimes  other- 
wise interpreted;  "most  of  the  recent  Jewish 
versions  follow  the  Talmud  in  giving  another 
sense  to  the  words,  which  it  appears  the  Hebrew 
will  bear:  Thou  slialt  not  stand  by  idly  when  thy 
neighbor's  life  is  in  danger.  So  Zunz,  Luzzato, 
Herxheimer,  Leeser,  Wogue."  Clark.  Ver.  17. 
Lange:  "Observance  of  good-will  towards  one's 
neighbor.  Blameworthiness  of  hate,  and  also 
of  the  bitter  keeping  back  of  the  reproof  which 
one  owes  to  his  neighbor.  It  is  a  fine  reminder 
that  one  may  become  a  sharer  in  a  neighbor's 
fault  by  a  lack  of  openness,  and  by  a  holding 
back  of  required  reproof."  On  the  last  clause, 
see  Textual,  and  on  the  whole  verse  comp.  Prov. 
xxvii.  5;   Matt,  xviii.  15-17. 

In  the  close  of  ver.  18  all  is  summed  up  in  the 
royal  law — thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself.  This  is  twice  quoted  by  our  Lord 
Himself  (Matt.  xix.  19;  xxii.  39),  and,  next  to 
love  to  God,  is  made  the  great  commandment  of 


CHAP.  XIX.  1-37. 


151 


the  law.  It  ia  repeatedly  referred  to  by  the 
Apostles  as  the  fulfilling  of  the  whole  law  to- 
wards one's  neighbor  (Rom.  xiii.  9;  Gal.  v.  14; 
Jas.  ii.  8).  It  may  be  (hat  at  the  lime  it  was 
given  it  was  too  far  above  the  spiritual  condition 
of  the  people,  who  must  first  be  trained  by  the 
detailed  precepts  going  before.  Nevertheless,  it 
is  imbedded  in  the  law  as  the  expression  of  the 
divine  will,  and  that  it  might  be  reached  by  such 
as  were  able  to  receive  it.  Such  passages  as 
Prov.  xxiv.  17,  18;  xxv.  21,  22,  show  that  it  did 
not  fail  of  exerting  an  influence  upon  the  na- 
tion, and  in  later  times  the  Rabbins  abundantly 
recognized  it  as  the  very  summary  of  all  duty 
toward's  one's  neighbor.  That  the  precept  has 
no  narrow  limitations  to  their  own  people  is 
shown  by  ver.  34,  in  which  il  is  expressly  ex- 
tended to  "the  stranger." 

The  second  series  of  commands,  vers.  19-32,  is 
introduced  with  the  formula.  Ye  shall  keep 
my  statutes,  in  which,  says  Kalisch,  the  word 
"statutes  must  be  taken  in  its  original  and 
most  pregnant  sense  as  that  which  is  'engraven' 
and  unalterably  ordained:  you  shall  not  deviate 
from  the  appointed  order  of  things,  nor  abandon 
the  eternal  laws  of  nature  as  fixed  by  Divine 
wisdom."  Ver.  19.  Lange  :  "  Observance  of  the 
natural  system,  or  of  the  simple  laws  of  nature, 
symbolically  expressed  in  reference  to  the  ten- 
dency to  allow  the  interbreeding  of  different 
species  of  animals,  to  mix  various  seeds  in  the 
field,  and  to  wear  garments  made  of  mixed  stuffs. 
When  it  is  said  in  regard  to  these  things.  Ye 
shall  keep  my  statutes,  the  laws  of  nature 
are  plainly  meant  as  the  laws  of  Jehovah,  and 
we  must  distinguish  between  the  symbolical  ex- 
emplification of  the  law  and  such  mixings  as 
nature  herself  or  the  necessities  of  life  compel, — 
to  say  nothing  of  the  purpose  of  investigation." 
This  law  is  repeated  in  Deut.  xxii.  9-11.  It  is 
clearly  to  be  looked  upon  as  one  of  those  many 
educational  laws  given  to  train  the  Israelites  to 
the  observance  of  the  natural  order  and  separa- 
tion of  things,  to  a  sense  of  fitness  and  con- 
gruity ;  and  hence,  when  the  underlying  princi- 
ple has  come  to  be  comprehended,  the  pari  icular 
details  by  which  it  was  enforced  cease  to  be  ob- 
ligatory. As  to  the  allegation  that  this  command 
was  violated  in  the  high-priest's  dress,  which  i-< 
said  to  have  been  woven  of  linen  and  wool,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  say  more  than  that  the  difficulty 
arises  entirely  from  a  misapprehension  in  taking 
the  word  scarlet  to  mean  scarlet  wool,  instead  of 
as  a  simple  designation  of  color. 

Vers.  20-22.  The  punishment  for  adultery  was 
death  for  both  parties  (xx.  10).  and  the  same  in 
case  of  the  seduction  of  a  free  virgin  who  was 
betrothed  (Deut.  xxii.  23,  24);  and  it  was  still 
death  to  the  man  in  case  the  act  might  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  been  by  violence  [ib.  25—27). 
These  laws  were  inapplicable  in  their  full  force 
in  the  case  of  a  slave,  since  she  could  not,  legally 
contract  marriage.  Still,  the  moral  offence  ex- 
isted, and  therefore  there  must  be  punishment. 
Versions  and  authorities  vary  as  to  whether  the 
punishment  was  to  be  inflicted  on  both  parties 
(LXX.,  Vulg.,  Syr.),  on  the  man  alone  (Sam.), 
or  on  the  woman  alone  (A.  V.).  The  last  is  sup- 
ported on  the  ground  thai  the  man's  pun- 
ishment   consisted  in  his  trespass  offering;   but 


this  is  so  entirely  inadequate  that  this  view 
may  be  dismissed.  Probably  both  parties  were 
punished  when  the  acquiescence  of  the  woman 
might  be  presumed,  and  the  man  alone  in  the 
opposite  case.  This  would  be  in  accordance 
with  the  analogy  of  Deut.  xxii.  23-27,  and  would 
account  for  the  indefiniteness  of  the  Hebrew  ex- 
pression. See  Textual  note  18.  The  supposi- 
tion that  both  were  ordinarily  to  be  punished 
also  agrees  best  with  the  following  plural — they 
shall  not  be  put  to  death.  In  the  form  of 
sacrifice  to  be  presented  by  the  man,  the  trespass 
offering  (comp.  v.  14 — vi.  7),  the  violation  of  the 
rights  of  property  of  which  he  had  also  been 
guilty  is  recognized. 

Vers.  23-25.  "  Treatment  of  nature,  in  the  case 
of  the  culture  of  plants,  after  their  analogy  with 
the  life  of  man.  Symbolic  practice:  the  fruits 
of  trees  for  the  first  three  years  were  to  be  con- 
sidered as  the  foreskin  of  the  tree,  and  were  not 
to  be  harvested  nor  eaten.  The  trees  were  to 
be  allowed  to  grow  strong  by  having  their  fruit 
hang  on  them.  The  fruit  of  the  fourth  year  was 
to  be  hallowed  to  Jehovah,  and  thus  by  a  theo- 
cratic consecration,  (he  fruit  of  the  following 
years  should  be  a  consecrated  food,  analogous  to 
the  food  of  the  flesh  that  was  slaiu  before  the 
door  of  the  Tabernacle.  First,  the  fruits  of  the 
trees  were,  so  to  speak,  heathen  ;  then  they  were 
hallowed  in  a  priestly  way;  and  then  finally  be- 
came fruits  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  theocracy." 
Lange,  It  is  noticeable  that  this  command,  like 
so  many  others,  is  wholly  prospective, — when 
ye  shall  come  into  the  land, — one  of  the 
constantly  recurring  evidences  that  this  legisla- 
tion was  aotually  given  during  the  life  ia  the 
wilderness. 

Vers.  26-28  forbid  several  heathen  customs, 
some  of  thera  associated  with  idolatrous  or  su- 
perstitious rites,  and  all  of  them  unbecoming  the 
holy  people  of  God.  "To  the  consecration  of 
the  use  of  fruit  is  added  for  completeness  once 
more  the  consecration  of  the  use  of  flesh,  and  in- 
deed with  a  more  strict  prohibition  of  the  use 
of  the  blood:  ye  shall  not  eat  anything 
with  the  blood.'  Lange.  "These  words  were 
not  a  mere  repetition  of  the  law  against  eating 
blood  (xvii.  10).  but  a  strengthening  of  the  law. 
Not  only  were  they  to  eat  no  blood,  but  no  flesh 
to  which  any  blood  adhered."  Keil.  Patrick, 
quoting  from  Maimonides  and  others,  makes  it 
very  probable  that  this  has  reference  lo  a  heathen 
custom  of  eating  flesh  over  the  blood  of  the  ani- 
mal from  which  it  had  been  taken  as  a  means 
of  communion  with  demons  who  were  supposed 
(o  feast  upon  the  blood  itself.  See  Spencer,  lib. 
II.,  c.  15.  Neither  shall  ye  use  enchant- 
ment.— This  is  a  different  sin  from  that  forbid- 
den in  ver.  31 ;  for  in  the  parallel  prohibitions, 
Deut.  xviii.  9-12,  the  two  are  distinguished. 
On},  primarily  to  whisper,  to  mutter,  covers  all 
kinds  of  magical  formulas,  all  attempts  to  secure 
a  desired  result  otherwise  than  by  natural  means 
or  the  invocation  of  divine  aid.  The  LXX.  ovk 
oiuvtelaBe:  and  Syr.  interpret  it  of  augury  by 
means  of  birds;  but  while  the  form  of  the  He- 
brew seems  to  connect  the  act  primarily  with  the 
serpent,  its  sense  in  use  is  certainly  more  gene- 
ral.    Comp.  Gen.  xliv.  5,  15.      Nor  observe 


152 


LEVITICUS. 


times. — }J\i\  according  to  some  authorities,  a 
denom.  verb  from  |Ji>=a  cloud,  and  this  sense  has 

It  t 

been  followed  by  the  A.  V.;  according  to  Rab- 
binical authorities,  however,  it  is  from  V]}_=the 
ei/f,  and  means  to  bewitch  with  an  evil  eye.  In 
either  case  the  general  sense  is  in  accordance 
with  the  preceding  clause:  to  rely  upon  occult 
arts  for  the  accomplishment  of  one's  purposes. 
Lange :  "To  the  prohibition  of  the  unhallowed 
sensual  use  of  nature  is  added  the  prohibition 
of  the  demoniacal  misinterpretation  of  nature, 
of  an  impious  desire  to  enter  the  spirit-world  by 
breaking  through  the  opposing  limits  of  nature  ; 
the  prohibition  of  soothsaying  and  Borcery, 
whereby,  in  all  their  forms,  natural  things  were 
misused,  ver.  26.  In  the  same  connection  be- 
longs the  disfiguring  of  the  natural  appearance 
of  one's  own  personal  form,  especially  of  the 
head  and  the  beard,  ver.  27.  And  in  this  law 
the  Christian  world  might  have  cause  to  see  it- 
self reflected,  with  their  unnatural  forms  of  every 
kind:  crinolines,  trains,  high-heeled  shoes,  chig- 
nons, and  hats  that  are  only  lids  to  the  forehead. 
Only  the  law  of  customs  must  be  remembered  : 
the  taste  of  the  women  is  the  taste  of  the  men." 
Theodoret  (Qu.  28),  followed  by  many  moderns, 
understands  the  things  here  forbidden  of  heathen 
customs  connected  either  with  idolatrous  usages 
or  with  mourning  for  the  dead.  Ver.  28.  For 
the  dead.—"  '03i=m  V32,  xxi.  11 ;  Num.  vi. 
6;  or  fID,  Deut.  xiv.  If  so  again  [the  same  form 
as  here  is  used]  in  xxii.  4;  Num.  v.  2;  ix.  6,  7, 
10."  Keil.  Lange:  "This  opposition  to  nature 
was  increased  by  cutting  marks  in  their  flesh  in 
remembrance  of  the  dead,  as  the  Jews  must  have 
seen  done  in  the  cultus  of  the  dead  among  the 
Egyptians.  With  this  belongs  the  cutting  in  of 
written  characters,  every  kind  of  tattooing,  of 
profaning  the  human  dignity  in  the  human 
form.  Ver.  28.  On  similar  heathen  customs  see 
Keil,  p.  130  [Trans,  p.  424]  ;  Knobel,  p.  513." 
Comp.  xxi.  5;  Deut.  xiv.  But  notwithstanding 
the  law,  the  custom  appears  to  have  continued  a 
familiar  one,  see  Jer.  xvi.  6;  xlviii.  37.  "Any 
voluntary  disfigurement  of  the  person  was  in  it- 
self an  outrage  upon  God's  workmanship,  and 
might  well  form  the  subject  of  a  law."   Clark. 

Ver.  29.  "The  common  natural  disposition 
becomes  especially  unnatural  when  the  father 
of  a  family  gives  away  his  daughter,  or  allows 
her  to  go  away,  to  become  a  whore.  One  result 
of  this  is  that  the  land  or  people  itself  begins  to 
fall  to  whoredom  also  in  the  religious  sense. 
"The  religious  immorality  is  here  meant,  as  it 
was  joined  with  many  worships,  Num.  xxv.  1," 
etc.  Knobel.  The  heathen  religious  service  of 
last  existed  among  the  most  different  nations,  the 
Babylonians,  for  example,  and  the  Indians  of  the 
present  day."  Lange.  Keil  argues  that  the  re- 
ference here  can  be  only  "to  fleshly  whoredom, 
the  word  iTDI  being  used  only  in  this  connec- 
tion." But  see  Ezek.  xvi.  27,  43,  58,  etc.  Ne- 
vertheless, the  context  here  requires  that  the 
carnal  sin  should  be  understood,  and  certainly 
that  is  the  primary  sin  in  Num.  xxv.  1. 

Ver.  30.  Lange:  "The  spirit  of  reverence  for 
the  institutions  of  the  church  is  also  a  character- 
istic of  true  humanity,  and  the  corresponding  ir- 


reverence, a  characteristic  of  barbarism,  even 
if  the  barbarism  be  occasionally  in  the  garments 
of  the  higher  culture."  History  has  abundantly 
shown  that  the  keeping  holy  of  the  Lord's  day 
and  reverence  for  His  sanctuary  runs  hand  in 
hand  with  the  highest  national  development. 
Throughout  this  "  social  and  domestic  life  is  per- 
vaded by  the  fear  of  God  and  characterized  by 
chasteness  and  propriety."  Keil.  In  His  re- 
peated cleansing  of  the  temple  (Jno.  ii.  14-16; 
Matt,  xxi.12,  13)  our  Lord  has  shown  that  the  lat- 
ter duty  at  least  is  one  of  permanent  obligation. 

Ver.  31.  Lange:  "Also  the  passive  supersti- 
tion which,  instead  of  asking  of  Jehovah,  espe- 
cially on  His  days  of  rest  and  in  His  holy  place, 
asks  of  the  conjurors  of  the  dead  and  of  wizards, 
or  of  any  ungodly  oracle  of  any  kind,  and  thus 
breaks  through  the  limits  of  the  consecrated  hu- 
manity, which  leaves  it  to  God  to  rule  and  trusts 
in  God."  Them  that  have  familiar  spirits. 
— The  Heb.  31N  is  used  both  for  the  divining 
spirit,  the  foreboding  demon  itself,  as  here  and 
in  xx.  27 ;  1  Sam.  xxviii.  7,  8,  etc.;  and  also  for 
the  person  in  whom  such  a  spirit  was  supposed 
to  dwell,  Isa.  xxix.  4.  The  LXX.  usually  render 
it  by  eyyaorpipvBoL— ventriloquists,  since  among 
the  ancients  ventriloquism  and  magical  arts  were 
wont  to  be  associated  together.  'Wizard. — 
*JJ?T — lit.  the  knowing  one ;  8ymm.  yvuarijc ;  Aq. 
yvupioTtjc,  is  always  associated  with  31N,  and 
means  plainly  one  who  pretends  to  more  than 
mortal  knowledge.  The  chief  means  used  by 
both  these  classes  of  persons  was  the  consulting 
with  the  spirits  of  the  departed.  While  this  fur- 
nishes an  incidental  testimony  all  along  to  the 
belief  of  the  Israelites  in  the  life  beyond  the 
grave,  it  is  self-evident  that  all  such  attempts 
to  secure  knowledge  which  God  has  not  put  it  in 
the  power  of  living  man  to  acquire  are  a  resist- 
ance to  His  will,  and  a  chafing  against  the  bar- 
riers He  has  imposed.  It  is  remarkable  that 
such  attempts  should  have  been  persisted  in 
through  all  ages  and  in  all  lands.  In  ver.  32 
the  outward  marks  of  respect  to  old  age  are  con- 
nected with  the  fear  of  God.  The  commendation 
of  this  virtue  is  frequent  in  Scripture,  and  its 
practice  appears  to  have  been  universal  among  all 
ancient  nations,  as  it  is  still  among  the  Orientals. 

Vers.  33,  34.  Lange:  "  Humanity  towards  the 
stranger,  who  is  not  a  Jew,  who  thus  certainly 
might  dwell  as  a  private  man  in  the  future  in- 
heritance of  Israel.  He  was  to  be  treated  ex- 
actly as  an  inhabitant  in  human  intercourse. 
Thou  shalt  love  him  as  thyself. — With  this 
the  remembrance  is  still  preserved  that  the 
Israelites  had  been  strangers  in  the  land  of 
Egypt."  The  royal  law  of  ver.  18  is  here  ex- 
pressly extended  to  the  stranger,  and  notwith- 
standing the  national  narrowness  necessary  to 
preserve  the  true  religion  in  the  world,  the  ge- 
neral brotherhood  of  mankind  is  hereby  taught 
as  far  as  was  possible  under  the  circumstances. 

Vers.  35,  36.  Lange:  "Integrity,  correspond- 
ing to  the  humanity,  is  now  made  especially  pro- 
minent and  sharp,  as  if  in  prophetic  foresight  in 
regard  to  the  occupation  of  the  Israelites  in 
trade,  and  with  reference  to  all  forms  of  bu- 
siness. 

"  In  this  mirror  of  humanity  net  only  Judaism 


CHAP.  XX.  1-27. 


153 


may  see  itself  reflected,  not  only  mediaeval  fana- 
ticism, hut  also  modern  culture." 

The  Ephah  i3  mentioned  as  the  standard  of 
dry,  and  the  Ilin  of  liquid  measure.  Pre- 
cisely how  much  each  contained  is  in  dispute. 
The  Hiu  was  the  sixth  part  of  the  Ephah;  and 
the  latter,  according  to  Josephus  (Ant.  III.  3, 
\  4;  VIII.  2,  §9),  contained  rather  more  than 
eight  and  a  half  gallons.  But  the  Rabbins  make 
the  capacity  only  about  half  this,  which  is  more 
probable.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  clear  that 
equity  in  the  affairs  of  the  daily  life  is  here 
made  to  rest  upon  the  foundation  of  duty  to- 
wards God. 

In  ver.  37  all  duties  enumerated  in  this  chap- 
ter are  placed  upon  the  same  ground — the  only 
ground,  as  experience  has  abundantly  shown, 
sufficiently  strong  to  withstand  the  temptations 
and  vicissitudes  of  the  world. 

DOCTRINAL   AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  The  foundation  of  the  law  here,  as  every- 
where, is  the  holiness  of  God.  Because  He  is 
holy,  therefore  the  people  who  would  live  in 
communion  with  Him  must  be  holy  too.  This 
principle  is  of  universal  application  to  all  times, 
and  to  all  occupations  of  human  life. 

II.  In  the  human  development  of  holiness  filial 
reverence  must  always  occupy  the  first  place,  and 
next  to  that  comes  reverence  for  the  outward  in- 
stitutions of  divine  appointment. 

III.  The  fulfilling  of  our  whole  duty  towards 
our  neighbor,  under  the  old  dispensation  as  un- 
der the  new,  culminates  and  is  comprehended  in 
the  law — Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself.  With  a  clearness  that  seems  to  belong 
to  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel,  "neighbor"  is 
made  to  comprehend  the  stranger  as  well  as 
one's  own  compatriots. 

IV.  In  the  general  exhortation  to  holiness  are 
included  all  details  of  the  daily  life.  There  is 
nothing  so  insignificant  that  one  may  allow  him- 
self in  unholy  conduct  in  relation  to  it;  because 
he  would  theroby  violate  the  fundamental  prin- 


ciple of  communion  with  God.  This  is  particu- 
larly applied  in  the  law  to  matters  of  business 
and  trade. 

V.  All  attempts  to  arrive  at,  more  than  mortal 
knowledge  by  consultation  with  the  spirits  of  the 
dead  are  especially  and  emphatically  forbidden. 

HOMILETICAL   AND   PRACTICAL. 

Lange :  "The  foundation  of  these  laws  is  an- 
nounced in  the  most  emphatic  declaration  of  the 
name  of  Jehovah  and  His  holiness,  again  and 
again,  as  the  sanction  of  the  commands.  Ye 
shall  be  holy,  for  I  am  holy — i.  «.,  ye  shall 
keep  your  personality  pure,  for  your  Jehovah, 
your  covenant  God,  the  absolute  Personality,  re- 
pels all  uncleanness,  all  confusion  with  the 
world,  either  in  (he  heads  of  Pantheists  or  in  the 
hearts  and  morals  of  the  servants  of  sin,  or  in 
the  rites  of  the  priests.  The  personality  is  dis- 
honored with  every  act  of  idolatry  and  every 
idolatrous  worship  (see  Isa.  xliv.  9sqq.;  Acts 
xvii. ).  There  follow  the  outlines  of  holy  thanks- 
giving festivals,  holy  harvest  festivals  and  vint- 
ages, holy  ways  of  thought  and  action,  holy 
oaths,  etc.  Continually  new  features  of  the  con- 
secration of  life  by  a  humane  conduct  are  made 
prominent;  and  truly  they  are  fine  and  thought- 
ful features." 

Each  precept  of  this  chapter  has  a  homiletical 
value  so  clear  that  no  amplification  of  the  text 
itself  is  necessary.  Holiness  is  made  to  consist 
not  merely  in  the  avoiding  of  sin  and  in  the 
fulfilment  of  certain  prescribed  duties,  but  in  a 
general  course  of  life  prompted  by  genuine  love. 
The  wants  of  the  poor  are  to  be  regarded,  the 
weak  and  defenceless  are  to  be  respected,  justice 
is  to  be  unwarped  by  either  personal  sympathies 
or  influence,  tale-bearing  avoided,  all  magical 
arts  and  efforts  to  attain  forbidden  knowledge 
are  to  be  shunned,  and,  in  a  word,  man  is  to  con- 
duct himself  in  all  things  as  one  who  is  in  com- 
munion with  God,  and  therefore  seeks  to  have 
His  will  carried  out  in  all  the  length  and  breadth 
of  his  own  daily  life. 


FOURTH    SECTION. 
Punishment  for  TJnholiness. 

"Keeping  Holy  the  Holy  Congregation  by  Cutting  off  Irreparable  Transgression." — Lange. 

Chapter  XX.   1-27. 

I,  2     And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Again,  thou  shalt  say  to  the  children 

of  Israel,  Whosoever  he  be  of  the  children  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that  sojourn 

in  Israel,  that  giveth  any  of  his  seed  unto  Molech  ;  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death: 

!  the  people  of  the  land  shall  stone  him  with  stones.     And  I  will  set  my  face  against 

that  man,  and  will  cut  him  off  from  among  his  people ;  because  he  hath  given  of 

t  his  seed  unto  Molech,  to  defile  my  sanctuary,  and  to  profaue  my  holy  name.     And 

if  the  people  of  the  land  do  any  ways  hide1  their  eyes  from  the  man,  when  he  giveth 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 
•  Ver.  4.  On  the  dagktah  in  dS^'H  and  13'^^,  Bee  Text.  Note  ■«  on  iv.  13. 

25  ':~ 


154  LEVITICUS. 


5  of  his  seed  unto  Molech,  and  kill  him  not :  then  I  will  set  my  face  against  that  man, 
and  against  his  family,  and  will  cut  him  off,  and  all  that  go  a  whoring  after  him, 

6  to  commit  whoredom  with  Molech,  from  among  their  people.  And  the  soul  that 
turneth  after  such  as  have  familiar  spirits,  and  after  wizards,  to  go  a  whoring  after 
them,  I  will  even  set  my  face  against  that  soul,2  and  will  cut  him  off  from   among 

7  his  people.     Sanctity  yourselves  therefore,  and  be  ye  holy :  for  I  am  the  Lord 

8  your  God.3  And  ye  shall  keep  my  statutes,  and  do  them :  I  am  the  Lord  which 
sanctify  you. 

9  For*  every  one  that  curseth  his  father  or  his  mother  shall  be  surely  put  to  death : 
he  hath  cursed  his  father  or  his  mother ;  his  blood5  shall  be  upon  him. 

10  And  the  man  that  committeth  adultery  with  another  man's  wife,  even  he  that 
commiteth  adultery  with  bis  neighbor's  wife,6  the  adulterer  and  the  adulteress  shall 

11  surely  be  put  to  death.  And  the  man  that  lieth  with  his  father's  wife  hath  unco- 
vered his  father's  nakedness :  both  of  them  shall  surely  be  put  to  death ;  their 

12  blood5  shall  be  upon  them.  And  if  a  man  lie  with  his  daughter  in  law,  both  of 
them  shall  surely  be  put  to  death  ;  they  have  wrought  confusion  ;  their  blood6  shall 

13  be  upon  them.  If  a  man  also  lie  with  mankind,  as  he  lieth  with  a  woman,  both 
of  them  have  committed  an  abomination  :  they  shall  surely  be  put  to  death  ;  their 

14  blood  shall  be  upon  them.  And  if  a  man  take  a  wife  and  her  mother,  it  is  wick- 
edness :  they  shall  be  burnt  with  fire,  both  he  and  they ;  that  there  be  no  wicked- 

15  ness  among  you.     And  if  a  man  lie  with  a  beast,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death  : 

16  and  ye  shall  slay  the  beast.  And  if  a  woman  approach  unto  any  beast,  and  lie 
down  thereto,  thou  shalt  kill  the  woman,  and  the  beast:  they  shall  surely  be  put 

17  to  death  ;  their  blood5  shall  be  upon  them.  And  if  a  man  shall  take  his  sister,  his 
father's  daughter,  or  his  mother's  daughter,  and  see  her  nakedness,  and  she  see  his 
nakedness ;  it  is  a  wicked  thing ;  and  they  shall  be  cut  off  in  the  sight  of  their 
people:     he    hath    uncovered    his   sister's   nakedness;  he'   shall    bear    his    ini- 

18  quity.  And  if  a  man  shall  lie  with  a  woman  having  her  sickness,  and  shall  uncover 
her  nakedness ;  he  hath  discovered  [uncovered6]  her  fountain,  and  she  hath  unco- 
vered the  fountain  of  her  blood :  and  both  of  them  shall  be  cut  off  from  among 

19  their  people.  And  thou  shalt  not  uncover  the  nakedness  of  thy  mother's  sister, 
nor  of  thy  father's  sister:  for  he  uncovereth  his  near  kin:  they  shall  bear  their 

20  iniquity.     And  if  a  man  shall  lie  with  his  uncle's  wife,  he  hath  uncovered  his  un- 

21  cle's  nakedness:  they  shall  bear  their  sin  ;  they  shall  die  childless.  And  if  a  man 
shall  take  his  brother's  wife,  it  is  an  unclean  thing :  he  hath  uncovered  his  bro- 
ther's nakedness :  they  shall  be  childless. 

22  Ye  shall  therefore  keep  all  my  statutes,  and  all  my  judgments,  and  do  them : 

23  that  the  land,  whither  I  bring  you  to  dwell  therein,  spue  you  not  out.  And  ye 
shall  not  walk  in  the  manners  [statutes9]  of  the  nation,10  which  I  cast  out  before 

24  you :  for  they  committed  all  these  things,  and  therefore  I  abhorred  them.  But  I 
have  said  unto  you,  Ye  shall  inherit  their  land,  and  I  will  give  it  unto  you  to  pos- 
sess it,  a  land  that  floweth  with  milk  and  honey:  I  am  the  Lord  your  God,  which 

25  have  separated  you  from  other  people.  Ye  shall  therefore  put  difference  between 
clean  beasts  and  unclean,  and  between  unclean  fowls  and  clean :  and  ye  shall  not 
make  your  souls  abominable  by  beast,  or  by  fowl,  or  by  any  manner  of  living  [omit 
living11]  thing  that  creepeth  on  the  ground,  which  I  have  separated  from  you  as 

s  Ver.  6.  C/333.    Four  MSS.  and  Onk.  read  t^'JO,  which  Do  Rossi  prefers  on  account  of  the  following  \fi\&.    For 

the  last,  however,  the  Sam.  reads  HnN- 

3  Ver.  7.  The  Sam.,  4  MSS.  and  LXX.  read:  for  I,  the  Lord  your  God,  am  holy. 

4  Ver.  9.  'l—for  is  omitted  in  two  MSS.,  the  LXX.  and  Vulg. 

'  Vers.  9,  11,  12,  1C.  On  the  plnral  form  for  Weed,  corap.  Gen.  iv.  10;  Ex.  xxii.  1. 

11  Ver.  In.  1  hree  of  Keonicott's  MSS.  omit  the  first  clause  of  this  verso.  Kos»nmiiller  considers  that  the  repetition 
involves  adistinction  for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  making  ^H  in  the  second  clause=relation,  ao  that  there  is  a  prohibition, 

flr-l  of  adnltery  in  general,  then  specifically  of  adultery  with  the  wife  of  a  relative.  For  this  sense  of  the  word  he  refers 
to  H 'lit.  xiii.  7  :  2  .Sun   xiii.  3.     S.  Augustine  {Qii.  73  in  Ilept.)  takes  the  same  view. 

'   Ver.  17.  Tie-  LXX.,  Syr.  and  Vulg.  have  the  plural. 

8  Ver.  IS.  The  same  word  should  receive  the  same  translation  iu  both  clauses. 

»  Ver.  23.  gtalula.    See  Text  Note  *  on  xviii.  3.  .         .. 

'0  Ver.  23.  The  Sam.  reails  rj'ljrt,  and  so  one  MS.  fol'owed  bj  all  the  ancient  versions,  as  seems  to  bo  required  by  the 
following  they  committed.    It  is  not  unlik-lv  that  □  in  <y  have  dropped  out  of  the  text. 

11  Ver.  28.  There  is  nothing  to  express  the  word  lu-ing  in  the  Ueb.,  and  it  is  better  omitted,  as  the  referencs  is  wholly 
to  the  dead  bodies  of  these  animals. 


CHAP.  XX.  1-27. 


155 


26  unclean.     And  ye  shall  be  holy  unto  me :  for  I  the  Lord  am  holy,  and  have 

27  severed  you  from  other  people,  that  ye  should  be  mine.  A  man  also  or  woman 
that  hath  a  familiar  spirit,  or  that  is  a  wizard,  shall  surely  be  put  to  death  :  they 
shall  stone  them  with  stones :  their  blood  shall  be  upon  them. 

the  third,  of  the  carnal  nature,  unruly,  vers. 
17-21. 

First  Class. 

"1.  The  Baerifice  to  Molech.  It  is  to  be 
understood  that  the  stranger  was  included  with 
the  Israelite  under  this  prohibition  ;  for  if,  in 
general,  no  sacrifice  to  false  gods  were  allowed 
in  the  land,  so  certainly  not  the  sacrifice  to  Mo- 
lech. The  Jew,  however,  would  become  more 
wicked  by  such  an  offering  than  a  heathen.  It 
is  also  here  plain  that  what  is  spoken  of  is  the 
giving  up  of  children  to  death."  [The  expres- 
sions used  here,  vers.  2,  3,  4,  are  an  abbreviated 
form  of  that  in  xviii.  21.  It  may  be  doubted 
whether  they  refer  to  children  at  all,  or  if  so,  to 
putting  them  to  death.  See  Textual  Note  and 
Comm.  on  xviii.  21. — F.  G.] 

"  In  regard  to  this,  it  sounds  like  a  charge  to 
execute  immediate  judgment  on  the  spot:  the 
people  of  the  land  shall  stone  him  with 
stones,  properly,  bury  him  under  thrown 
stones."  [Doubtless  in  a  primitive  state  of 
society  all  punishment  was  somewhat  summary, 
and  this  particular  punishment  is  often  provided 
for  in  the  law,  ver.  27;  xxiv.  14;  Num.  xv.  35, 
36;  Deut.  xiii.  10;  xvii.  5;  xxi.  21;  xxii.  21, 
24,  etc.  But,  nevertheless,  it  wa3  only  to  be 
administered  on  sufficient  evidence,  and  with 
due  forms  of  law,  Deut.  xvii.  6;  xix.  15,  etc.— 

F.  6.] "In   this   case  the  avenging   is   God's 

personal  affair:  Jehovah  sets  Mis  face  against 
him  to  consume  him  out  of  Jehovah's  people; 
for  his  sin  is  a  three-fold  one:  he  has  given  his 
seed  to  Molech,  and  therein  has  judged  himself; 
he  has  defiled  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah,  that  is, 
the  land  hallowed  by  His  sanctuary;  and  he 
has  profaned  Jehovah's  holy  name,  and  dese- 
crated the  religion  of  His  name.  And  even 
if  the  people  should  let  him  go  unpunished 
in  the  last  case,  Jehovah  Himself  will  pur- 
sue him  and  even  his  race  with  His  judg- 
ment, until  He  has  exterminated  all  who  are 
associated  in  his  guilt.  So  strongly  rules  the 
absolute  Personality  against  all  behaviour 
that  opposed  personality.  The  judgment  is  in 
this  case  as  immanent  in  the  guilty  as  a  consu- 
ming fire.  One  might  also  suppose  that  "  the 
face  of  Jehovah,"  in  a  construclio  prmgnans ,  here 
signified  the  Angel  of  His  presence,  and  thin 
expressed  the  thought  that  the  spirit  of  the 
revealed  religion  would  exterminate  the  abomi- 
nations mentioned  together  with  their  authors. 
There  were  two  grades,  however,  in  complicity 
in  this  guilt:  in  the  first  grade,  it  is  an  apos- 
tasy to  these  men  (as  e.g.  in  the  case  of  heathen 
wives)-  in  the  second  grade,  through  this 
to  Molech.  Ver.  5."— [It  is  noticeable  that 
while  the  prohibition  of  the  sin  in  vers.  1-5 
extends  to  the  stranger  on  the  ground  that  such 
abomination  was  not  to  be  tolerated  at  all  in 
the  consecrated  land;  yet  the  extension  of  the 
penalty  to  complicity  in  the  sin  by  concealment 
is  applied  only  to  the  people  of  the  land 
(ver,  4)_that  is,  to  native  Hebrews  (comp.  iv. 


EXEGETTCAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

The  whole  of  Lange's  Commentary  on  this 
chapter  is  here  given. 

"  Our  section  forms  a  completion  of  the  pro- 
hibitions which  have  preceded  in  ch.  xviii., 
while  it  still  further  joins  the  punishment  of 
death  to  several  of  the  very  sins  there  mentioned. 
Yet  this  is  certainly  no  mere  appendix,  but  pro- 
ceeds from  an  entirely  new  point  of  view. 
There  the  fundamental  idea  was :  the  sexual 
relations,  particularly,  the  theocratic  seed,  must 
be  kept  holy  ;  here  the  fundamental  idea  is:  the 
holy  land  must  be  kept  holy,  it  must  not  be  out- 
raged or  stirred  up  to  reaction  and  revolt 
through  an  abomination  which  might  determine 
it  to  spue  out  the  Israelites  also  (as  a  person 
spues  out  something  nauseous  from  his  mouth), 
ver.  22.  Ch.  xviii.  28  had  already  expressed 
this  thought,  but  from  the  point  of  view  that 
the  land  would  be  thereby  desecrated.  It  is 
also  here  clearly  brought  out  that  the  land 
would  be  taken  away  from  the  Canaanites  on 
account  of  their  constant  abominations,  and 
given  to  the  people  of  Israel;  but  that  the  like 
punishment  should  befall  them  also,  if  they  did 
not  keep  the  land  clean  by  executing  the  penalty 
of  death  upon  the  offenders.  In  the  conception 
of  the  sickened  land  and  the  revolted  nature 
lies  evidently  the  idea  of  the  people  consumed 
by  unnatural  sins."  [A  simpler  view  of  the 
relation  of  this  to  chs.  xviii.  and  xix.  is  given 
by  Clark :  "  The  crimes  which  are  condemned 
in  those  chapters  on  purely  spiritual  ground, 
the  absolute  prohibition  of  Jehovah,  have  here 
special  punishments  allotted  to  them  as  offences 
against  the  well  being  of  the  nation."  In  ch. 
xix.  there  is  no  mention  at  all  of  punishment 
except  in  the  single  case  of  the  betrothed  slave 
(vers.  20-22) ;  in  ch.  xviii.  there  is  no  specific 
punishment  attached  to  each  offence,  but  only 
the  general  statement  (vers.  28-30)  of  the  penalty 
to  fall  upon  the  trangressor  of  any  of  the  sta- 
tutes and  upon  the  land  as  a  whole.  For  the 
purpose  of  civil  government,  therefore,  the  pre- 
sent chapter  is  a  necessary  supplement. — F.  G.] 

"Already  (schon frilher)  has  the  decree  of  the 
death-penalty  been  brought  forward  for  sins 
that  were  committed,  HOT  T3  (Num.  xv.  30). 
By  this  we  can  only  understand  stubborn  or 
arrogant  sins ;  therefore  not  every  conscious 
sin,  as  opposed  to  the  unconscious,  but  every 
sin  which  was  maintained  in  opposition  to  the 
theocratic  jurisdiction.  Single  sins  might  always 
prove  to  be  such;  but  the  abominations  here 
mentioned  were,  for  the  most  part,  deadly  sins, 
those  most  befitting  the  Cherem,  as  blaspheming 
the  name  of  Jehovah,  ch.  xxiv.  11,  and  dese- 
crating the  Sabbath,  Num.  xv.  32. 

"  But  also  we  have  here  different  grades  of 
punishment  with  the  different  grades  of  offence. 
The  first  class  of  sins  is  devilish,  vers.  1-7  ;  the 
second  class  brutal,  even  beastly,  vers.  10-16 ; 


156 


LEVITICUS. 


27),  and  also  to  them  alone  (ver.  2)  is  committed 
the  execution  of  the  penalty. — F.  G.] 

"  2.  Also  the  soul  that  turneth  after  such 
as  have  familiar  spirits  (necromancers)  and 
after  wizards  (LXX.  iyyaa-pifiv0oi=veatvi\o- 
quists,  i-aoithi  =  singing  magic  charms,  both 
not  exegetically  exhaustive)  to  go  a  'whoring 
after  them  —  i.  e.,  to  engage  in  apostasy 
from  Jehovah  to  dark  forms  of  supersti- 
tion,— therefore  against  these  also  Jehovah 
will  set  His  face.  It  helps  them  nothing  if  they 
remain  unpunished  of  men;  they  fall  before  the 
more  searching  sentence  upon  presumptuous 
wickedness.  Jehovah  pursues  them  even  to 
their  extermination,  for  they  are  not  to  corrupt 
His  people  for  Him. 

"  In  regard  to  these  sins  it  is  said,  on  the 
other  hand:  Sanctify  yourselves  therefore, 
and  be  ye  holy:  raise  yourselves  to  the  dig- 
nity of  theocratic  personalities,  for  your  God  is 
in  Jehovah,  the  absolute,  pure  Personality. 
While  they  observe  the  ordinances  of  this  Holy 
Being,  they  must  understand  that  it  is  He  who 
is  training  them  to  be  a  holy  people. 

Second  Class. 

"First  Case. — Next  the  text  speaks  of  the 
unnatural  and  profligate  child  that  curseth  his 
father  or  his  mother.  He  shall  be  surely 
put  to  death.  And  herewith  commences  the 
new  class.  But  since  the  expression  begins  with 
for  ("3),  it  gives  to  the  clause  at  the  same  time 
a  symbolic  character  in  reference  to  the  former 
class :  profaning  the  name  of  Jehovah  is  like  this 
sin  of  cursing  father  or  mother,  since  He,  as  the 
Holy  One,  creates  for  Himself  His  holy  people. 
But  for  the  second  class  the  expression  is  cha- 
racteristic, his  blood  shall  be  upon  him,  or 
upon  them,  vers.  9,  11,  12,  13,  16.  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  ver.  14  brings  out  an  increase  in 
regard  to  this  form  of  punishment;  but  ver.  15 
certainly  falls  under  one  category  with  ver.  16. 
The  ordinance  of  punishment,  equalizing  the 
guilt  of  the  unnatural  curser  with  that  of  the 
shedding  of  blood,  brings  upon  him  the  penal 
retribution  of  the  latter.     Ver.  9. 

"Second  and  Third  Cases. — The  crime 
of  adultery  with  a  neighbor's  wife,  and  the  crime 
of  incest  with  a  father's  wife  (a  step-mother)  are 
equalized  under  the  sentence  of  blood-guiltiness 
which  incurred  death,  and  this  for  both  man  and 
woman  alike.     Vers.  10,  11. 

"Fourth  Case. — The  same  applies  to  incest 

with  a  daughter-in-law,  v^FI  (mixing,  confusion, 
defilement).      [Ver.  12.] 

"  Fifth  Case. — Paederasty,  moreover,  is  desig- 
nated as  an  abomination,  as  contrary  to  nature, 
a  revolting  crime;  and  the  punishment  of  death 
is  here  expressly  made  prominent.  This  sin  is 
called  nsyin  (abomination,  horror).     [Ver.  13.] 

"Sixth  Case. — The  double  incest  is  made 
most  particularly  prominent  when  a  man  lies 
both  with  a  mother  and  her  daughter.  They 
were  to  be  burnt  with  each  other  (without  doubt, 
their  bodies  after  they  had   been  stoned).     This 

sin  is  called  iT3t  (a  refined  or  unheard  of  deed 

T  •    * 
of  shame.     The  law  brings  out  prominently  that 


such  moral  enormities  should  not  exist  in  Israel). 
The  same  penalty  was,  moreover,  imposed  upon 
the  daughter  of  a  priest  who  became  a  whore, 
because  she  had  put  her  father  to  shame,  xxi.  9. 
So  Achan  was  first  stoned  in  the  valley  of  Achor, 
then  burned,  since  he  had  brought  a  curse,  a 
corrupting  complicity  in  guilt  upon  Israel,  Josh, 
vii.  But  Josiah  set  burning  against  burning,  the 
theocratic  burning  against  the  burning  to  Mo- 
lech,  when  he  burned  the  bones  of  the  priests 
upon  their  altars,  and  thereby  purified  Judah 
and  Jerusalem  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  5;  comp.  2  Kings 
xxiii.  10).  With  this  appears  the  embryo  of  the 
Gehenna,  as  it  comes  out  in  symbolic  form  in  the 
Old  Testament,  Isa.  lxvi.  21.  The  Gehenna  is 
thus  a  representation  of  the  fire  of  Molech,  and 
over  it  also  the  fire  of  judgment  has  at  last  come. 
Ver.  14.  The  Old  Testament  fire  penalty  was 
only  symbolical,  and  involved  no  unnatural  tor- 
ture, like  the  mediaeval  mimicry  of  the  flames  of 
hell.  In  tbis  case,  the  offender  was  first  put  to 
death;  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  Old  Testament 
hanging. 

"Seventh  and  Eighth  Cases. — Copu- 
lation with  a  beast,  either  by  a  man  or  a  woman. 
With  the  beastly  human  being,  the  beast  itself 
was  also  to  be  destroyed.  For  examples,  see 
Knobel,  p.  507.     [Vers.  15, 16.] 

Third  Class. 

"  First  Case. — Copulation  with  a  half-sister." 
[This  also,  as  in  xviii.  9,  necessarily  covers  the 
case  of  a  full  sister,  for  she  was  both  the  daugh- 
ter of  the  father  and  the  daughter  of  the  mother. 
— F.  G.]  "They  shall  be  cut  off  in  the 
sight  of  their  people. — Thus  they  should  form 
a  warning  spectacle."  Here  the  crime  is  de- 
scribed as  "IDn  and  p,J>  disgrace  and  misdeed, 
[Ver.  17.] 

"Second  Case. — He  that  lay  with  a  menstru- 
ous  woman,  who  in  such  wise  uncovered  the 
fountain  of  her  blood — so  to  speak — exposed 
her  life-spring.  The  penalty  of  death  is  for 
both.  The  sentence  sounds  with  a  more  gentle 
expression:  destruction  out  of  the  midst  of  the 
people."  [Ver.  18.  The  punishment  here  refers 
to  the  act  knowingly  committed;  in  xv.  24  the 
light  penalty  is  given  for  the  same  act  uninten- 
tionally committed. — F.  G.] 

"Third  Case. — Intercourse  with  an  aunt  on 
either  the  father's  or  the  mother's  side.  They 
shall  bear  their  iniquity. — Thus  sounds  the 
sentence  indefinitely,  in  transition  to  the  follow- 
ing.    [Ver.  19.] 

"Fourth  Case. — If  one  takes  the  wife  of  his 
brother,  it  is  iTU  (it  induces  the  curse  of  the 
first  degree);  The  penalty  is  childlessness,  and 
is  thus  entirely  a  divine  dispensation  (ver.  21). 
Here,  as  has  been  said,  the  prohibition  can,  in 
the  case  of  the  Levirate  marriage  (Deut.  xxv.  5- 
10),  become  a  command — an  evidence  of  the 
nicety  of  the  law."  [On  the  meaning  of  the  pe- 
nalty of  childlessness  see  the  preliminary  note 
to  ch.  xviii.  It  would  be  entirely  out  of  analogy 
with  the  Divine  dealings  with  man  to  suppose  a 
perpetual  special  interposition  through  all  the 
ages  of  Israel's  history  in  every  case  of  violation 


CHAP.  XX.  1-27. 


157 


of  this  law,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  character 
of  the  forbidden  relation  to  induce  childlessness 
under  those  ordinary  Divine  appointments  which 
we  call  natural  laws.  It  is  also  much  more  in 
accordance  with  the  general  character  of  this 
chapter  that  the  penalty  should  be  understood 
of  something  inflicted  by  statute  law, — the  reck- 
oning of  the  issue  of  such  marriages  to  another 
than  the  actual  father.  So  rightly  S.  Augustin, 
Qu.  76  in  Hept.  It  is  a  striking  fact  that  this 
penalty  was  still  carried  out  in  the  one  case  of 
the  prohibited  degrees,  when  the  prohibition  was 
changed  to  a  command.  In  the  Levirate  mar- 
riage no  heirs  were  begotten  to  the  actual  fa- 
ther, but  they  were  reckoned  to  the  deceased 
brother.— F.  G.] 

"  In  conclusion,  another  exhortation  follows 
which,  in  the  first  place,  marks  out  the  ordi- 
nances as  judgments  (ideas) ;  secondly,  ex- 
presses the  incongruity  between  the  unnatural 
behaviour  and  the  nature  of  the  land  of  God,  for 
which  even  Israel  could  be  spued  out  from  it  ; 
and  this  brings  out,  iu  the  third  place,  that  for 
such  very  things  the  heathen  were  thrust  out  of 
the  land.  To  this  threat  a  promise  is  appended 
in  conclusion.  [Ver.  24.]  And  with  this  is 
connected  a  noble  idea :  in  the  separation  of  clean 
beasts  from  the  unclean,  the  separation  of  Israel 
from  the  heathen  is  to  be  symbolically  mirrored 
forth.  The  closing  sentence  [ver.  27]  would  be 
unintelligible  as  a  repetition  (from  chap.  six. 
31);  evidently  it  is  the  germ  of  the  prohibition 
of  false  enthusiasm  and  prophecy  in  Israel  itself 
(see  Deut.  xix.  11  sqq.)."  [In  xix.  31,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  general  character  of  chaps, 
xviii.  and  xix.,  we  have  simply  the  prohibition 
on  the  spiritual  ground  of  the  opposition  to  God's 
will,  without  mention  of  specific  punishments; 
here  we  have  throughout  civil  penalties  attached 
to  the  various  offences  as  against  the  theocratic 
state.  Accordingly  those  that  have  familiar  spi- 
rits or  are  wizards  require  to  be  mentioned  agaiu 
in  order  that  the  death  penalty  may  be  denounced 
against  them. — F.  G] 

"Ver.  25  is  particularly  important,  since  it 
contains  the  key  to  the  understanding  of  the  Le- 
vitical  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean 
animals.  Men  have  sought  for  physiological 
reasons  for  this  distinction,  and  quite  lately  an 
Israelitish  author  has  referred  to  the  discovery  of 
the  Trichina  as  the  foundation  of  the  prohibition 
of  swine's  flesh.  In  regard  to  many  of  the  un- 
clean animals,  there  is  indeed  the  reason  of  the 
physiological  unhealthiness  of  the  flesh,  or  of  the 
physical  aversion  to  their  hateful  appearance  ;  to 
which  may  be  added,  as  connected,  something  of 
the  physical  effect  of  the  blood  of  wild  beasts. 
Also  the  limitation  of  Israel  to  the  use  and  sacri- 
fice of  domestic  animals  must  have  an  economic 
significance,  and  be,  so  to  speak,  for  the  benefit  of 
(he  State,  since  it  worked  agaifrst  the  dissipa- 
tions of  the  ancient  hunting  and  the  luxury  of  the 
heathen,  and  with  the  cultivation  of  the  land, 
furthered  at  the  same  time  domestic  simplicity 
and  contentment."  [This  must  be  understood  to 
apply  only  iu  a  limited  degree  to  the  Israelites; 
for  they  were  allowed  freely  to  hunt  and  eat  all 
clean  wild  animals,  as  the  "  roebuck  and  the 
hart"  (Deut.  xii.  15,  etc.).  In  regard  to  all 
physiological  and  other  reasons,  it  is  always  to 


be  remembered  that  no  animals  are  intrinsically 
unclean;  none  were  excepted  from  the  grant  to 
Noah,  and  none  from  the  Christian  abrogation 
of  the  distinction.  The  law  was  wholly  tempo- 
rary, added  "because  of  transgressions,"  to 
constitute  Israel  a  peculiar  people. — F.  G.] 
"  But  the  symbolic  meaning  of  the  animal  world, 
as  a  representation  of  Israel  among  the  Gent  ilea, 
is  here  expressly  brought  out  as  the  religious 
main  reason.  Israel  was  to  have  a  constant  re- 
presentation of  its  separation  from  the  heathen 
world  in  the  separation  of  the  clean  animals,  and 
thus  also  the  heathen  world,  by  which  it  was 
surrounded,  and  from  which  it  was  to  understand 
that  it  differed  in  religion  and  in  morals,  was 
to  be  represented  in  the  sphere  of  the  unclean 
animals.  The  sacred  observance  of  the  laws  of 
food  was  thus  a  constant  reminder  for  Israel  of 
its  theocratic  sanctity  and  dignity.  Thus  it  is 
plain  that  the  old  distinction  between  clean  and 
unclean  animals  must  fall  away  after  the  bound- 
ary between  Israel  and  the  heathen  has  fallen. 
But  it  is  also  to  be  recollected  that  Judaism 
clung  very  strongly  to  the  old  distinction,  as  it 
did  no  less  to  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  blood; 
and  the  Apostolic  ordinance  in  regard  to  the  last 
particular  and  cognate  subjects  is  explained  to 
mean  that  these  laws,  which  had  been  ended  as 
religious  dogmas,  must  yet  continue  for  a  time  as 
Christian  customs  for  the  sake  of  a  united  Chris- 
tian fellowship.  The  shadowing  forth  of  the 
heathen  world  in  the  world  of  unclean  beasts, 
which  is  here  expressly  brought  out,  is  denied  by 
Keil,  in  opposition  to  Kurtz,  without  reason  (p. 
95)."  [Much  as  we  may  admire  the  beauty  and 
force  of  the  symbolism  here  presented  by  Lange, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  it  "is  here  expressly 
brought  out,"  or  even  in  any  way  alluded  to  in 
the  text.  Certainly  the  observance  of  the  dis- 
tinction among  animals  is  placed  upon  a  religious 
ground,  and  this  observance  would  contribute  to 
make  of  Israel  that  separate  people  which  God 
had  called  them  to  be.  Naturally  then  might 
the  Israelites  themselves  have  compared  tho 
heathen  to  unclean  animals;  but  so  far  is  such 
an  idea  from  finding  countenance  in  the  word  of 
God  that  it  is  only  recognised  to  be  removed, 
and  the  heathen  are  first  represented  as  un- 
clean animals  in  the  vision  of  St.  Peter  (Acts  x. 
10-10)  at  the  moment  when  such  distinctions 
were  forever  to  be  done  away.  The  object  of 
the  law  was  to  make  the  distinction  of  animals 
fixed  and  unalterable;  but  in  regard  to  the 
heathen,  to  encourage  them  to  offer  sacrifices 
and  partake  in  the  worship  of  God,  and  thus  to 
be  drawn  into  ever  increasing  nearness  of  rela- 
tion to  Him. — F.  G.] 

DOCTRINAL  AND  ETHICAL. 
I.  In  chap,  xviii.  the  law  is  given  simply  as 
the  will  of  God.  Here  punishments  are  attached 
to  disobedience  as  to  civil  offences  against  the 
theocratic  state.  There  seems  no  reason  why 
these  two  chapters  should  have  been  separated 
except  to  mark  this  distinction  emphatically. 
Obedience  to  God's  law  is  required  simply  be- 
cause it  is  His  will,  and  this  is  set  forth  by  it- 
self; afterwards  and  separately,  punishments 
are  provided  for  those  among  His  people  who  re- 
fuse to  be  guided  by  Him. 


153 


LEVITICUS. 


IT.  In  the  frequent  expression  his  or  their 
blood  shall  be  upon  him  or  them  is  a  plain 
intimation  that  the  offender  alone  is  responsible 
for  the  evil  that  comes  upon  him.  The  divine 
law,  whether  natural  or  revealed,  is  inexorable, 
and  he  who  thrusts  himself  across  its  path  neces- 
sarily incurs  its  penalties.  There  is  no  occasion 
for  a  Divine  interposition  to  punish,  and  there  is 
no  room  for  the  charge  of  severity  ;  the  offender 
braves  an  irresistible  will,  and  in  doing  this 
must  himself  alone  be  held  responsible  for  the 
result. 

III.  The  beast  involved  in  the  guilt  of  man  or 
woman  must  be  put  to  death  with  them.  There 
could  be  no  moral  guilt  on  the  part  of  the  beast, 
because  there  was  no  moral  responsibility;  but 
yet  he  must  perish  because  he  had  been  associated 
in  human  siu.  Whether  this  was  in  order  to  re- 
move the  tool  of  sin  from  sight  simply,  or  whe- 
ther it  was  because  of  the  association  of  human 
sin  with  the  beast;  in  either  case  it  is  plain  that 
it  was  commanded  not  for  the  sake  of  the  beast, 
but  of  man.  Here  we  have  one  of  the  many  in- 
stances in  the  law  in  which  human  associations 
and  feelings  are  cared  for  and  protected,  and 
used  also  as  means  for  the  advancement  of  ho- 
liness. 

HOMILETICAL   AND   PRACTICAL. 

Lange:  "The  chapter  of  the  great  theocratic 
rigor  (chap,  xx.)  forms  a  contrast  to  the  chapter 


of  the  great  theocratic  mildness  and  purity  of 
life.  Here  the  various  measures  of  punishment 
come  into  consideration.  Burning  with  fire,  as 
a  symbolical  addition  to  the  punishment  of  death, 
is  only  connected  with  the  dead  body  which  has 
been  put  to  death  by  stoning.  Then  follows  the 
particular  capital  punishment;  and  next  to  this  in- 
definite forms  of  punishment,  he  shall  bear  his 
iniquity  ;  and  finally  the  punishment  of  child- 
lessness, in  which  also  we  are  certainly  to  sup- 
pose a  physical  basis.  The  conception  of  the 
abominations  is  the  conception  of  that  which  is 
against  nature  (Rem.  i.),  of  that  which,  even 
according  to  natural  instinct,  is  perverse,  hor- 
rible, and  a  revolt  against  the  moral  law  in  man's 
nature;  but  in  regard  to  this,  indeed,  nature  it- 
self comes  to  the  judgment  like  a  spirit  of  retri- 
bution." 

The  law  of  this,  as  of  many  other  chapters,  is 
enforced  on  the  ground  that  the  Israelites  were 
called  to  be  a  holy  people.  With  how  great  ad- 
ditional force  must  this  apply  to  Christians.  Not 
only  the  Israelite,  but  the  stranger  also,  defiled 
God's  sanctuary  and  profaned  His  holy  name  by 
sin.  The  same  thingmustbe  truealways;  there 
is  no  escape  from  responsibility  because  one 
chooses  not  to  acknowledge  allegiance  to  God. 
The  Divine  commands  still  rest  upon  him.  Only 
he  has  less  help  and  support  in  keeping  them 
while  he  remains  aloof  from  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel. 


PART  SECOND. 

Holiness  on  the  Part  of  the  Priests  and  Holiness  of  the  Offerings. 

"  The  sacred  observance  of  the  priestly  position,  of  the  sacrifice,  and  of  the  priestly  calling." — Lange. 

Chapters  XXI.,  XXII. 

A.— "THE  DESECRATION  OF  THE  PRIESTLY  POSITION  AND 
THE  PRIESTLY  CALLING."— Lange. 

Chapter  XXI. 

1  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Speak  unto  the  priests  the  sons  of  Aaron,  and 

2  say  unto  them,  There  shall  none  be  defiled  for  the  dead  among  his  people :  but  for 
his  kin,  that  is  near  unto  him,  that  is,  for  his  mother,  and  for  his  father,  and  for  his 

3  son,  and  for  his  daughter,  and  for  his  brother,  and  for  his  sister  a  virgin,  that  is 

4  nigh  unto  him,  which  hath  had  no  husband  ;  for  her  may  he  be  defiled.     But  [omit 
but]  he  shall  not  defile  himself,  being  a  chief  man1  among  his  people,  to  protane 


TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 
1  Ver.  4.  V?DT*3  7^*3  X^ET  fcw-    Tlie  interpretation  of  this  obscure  clause  is  very  various.    The  LXX.,  mistaking 

•  T   -  : t  -  • 

7173,  read  ou  niavQrio-erai  cf  ajriva  iv  tio  Aaui  auTou,  meaning  that  the  priest  shall  not  defile  himself  rashly  or  lightly. 

The  Syr.  and  Vulg.  have  transferred  the  preposition  3  from  VD^  to  7_r>3  and  read  but  he  shall  7iot  be  defiled  for  a  prince, 

etc.,  a  BenRo  adopted  by  several  expositors.     The  A.  V.  has  followed  the  Tnrix.  of  Onk.  and  tb«  Arab.,  which  is  interpreted  to 
mean  that  the  priest,  as  occupying  a  high  official  position,  head  of  a  family,  etc.,  should  not  defile  himself;  if  this  sense  can 

be  sustained,  it  throws  some  light  upon  the  occasional  use  of  \T\2  for  prince.    It  is  adopted  by  many  expositors,  as  Von 

Gerlach  and  Kcil.      The  Targ.  Jonathan,  and  several  Jewish  expositors  (Kalisch  also,  and  Knobel)  understand   7^3  to 

mean  husband,  a  sufficiently  well-established  meaning  of  the  word,  and  one  which  is  followed  in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V. ; 


CHAP.  XXI.  1-24. 


159 


5 
6 


himself.  They2  shall  not  make  baldness  upon  their  head,  neither  shall  they  shave 
off  the  corner  of  their  beard,  nor  make  any  cuttings  in  their  flesh.  They  shall  be 
holy  unto  their  God,  and  not  profane  the  name  of  their  God :  for  the  offerings  of 
the  Lord  made  by  fire,  and  [omit  and3]  the  bread  of  their  God  they  do  offer:  there- 
fore they  shall  be  holy.* 

They  shall  not  take  a  wife  that  is  a  whore,  or  profane :  neither  shall  they  take  a 
woman  put  away  from  her  husband :  for  he5  is  holy  unto  his  God.  Thou  shalt 
sanctify  him  therefore  ;  for  he  offereth  the  bread  of  thy  God  :  he  shall  be  holy  unto 
thee :  for  I  the  Lord,  which  sanctify  you,6  am  holy.  And  the  daughter  of  any 
priest,  if  she  profane  herself  by  playing  the  whore,  she  profaneth  her  father  :  she 
shall  be  burnt  with  fire. 

And  he  that  is  the  high  priest  among  his  brethren,  upon  whose  head  the  anointing 
oil  was  poured,  and  that  is  consecrated  to  put  on  the  garments,  shall  not  uncover 
his  head,  nor  rend  his  clothes  ;  neither  shall  he  go  in  to  any  dead  body,  nor  defile 

12  himself  for  his  father,  or  for  his  mother  ;  neither  shall  he  go  out  of  the  sanctuary, 
nor  profane  the  sanctuary  of  his  God  ;  for  the  crown  of  the  anointing  oil  of  his  God 

13, 14  is  upon  him :  I  am  the  Lord.  And  he  shall  take  a  wife  in  her  virginity.  A 
widow,  or  a  divorced  woman,  or  profane,  or1  an  harlot,  these  shall  he  not  take:  but 
he  shall  take  a  virgin  of  his  own  people  to  wife.  Neither  shall  he  profane  his  seed 
among  his  people:  for  I  the  Lord  do  sanctify  him. 

17  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  Aaron,  saying,  Whoso- 
ever he  be  of  thy  seed  in  their  generations  that  hath  any  blemish,  let  him  not  ap- 
proach to  offer  the  bread  of  his  God.  For  whatsoever  man  he  be  that  hath  a  blem- 
ish, he  shall  not  approach :  a  blind  man,  or  a  lame,  or  he  that  hath  a  flat  nose,  or 

19,  20  any  thing  superfluous,  or  a  man  that  is  brokenfooted,  or  brokenhanded,  or  crook- 
backt,  or  a  dwarf,8  or  that  hath  a  blemish  in  his  eye,  or  be  scurvy,  or  scabbed,  or 

21  hath  his  stones  broken  ;  no  man  that  hath  a  blemish  of  the  seed  of  Aaron  the  priest 
shall  come  nigh  to  offer  the  offerings  of  the  Lord  made  by  fire  :  he  hath  a  blemish  ; 

22  he  shall  not  come  nigh  to  offer  the  bread  of  his  God.     He  shall  eat  the  bread  of 
2j  his  God,  both  of  the  most  holy,  and  of  the  holy.     Only  he  shall  not  go  in  unto  the 

vail,  nor  come  nigh  unto  the  altar,  because  he  hath  a  blemish;  that  he  profane  not 
24  my  sanctuaries  :9  for  I  the  Lord  do  sanctify  them.     And  Moses  told  it  unto  Aaron, 
and  to  his  sons,  and  unto  all  the  children  of  Israel. 


10 


11 


15 


16 


18 


bnt  this  requires  .for  his  infe  to  be  supplied,  for  which  there  is  no  warrant,  and  it  al«o  seems  highly  improbable  that  mourn- 
ing should  be  permitted  for  the  relations  mentioned  in  vers.  2,  3,  and  forbidden  for  the  wife.     HicnaeUa  understands  the 

high-priest  to  be  intended  by  71*3  ;  but  his  conduct  is  the  special  subject  of  vers.  10-12.  On  the  whole,  no  other  interpre- 
tation s«ems  sufficiently  well-established  to  take  the  place  of  that  in  the  A.  V.,  although  even  that  can  hardly  be  considered 
as  satisfactory.     In  any  case  it  is  better  to  omit  the  interpolated  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  ver-e. 

2  Vers.  o.  The  KYi  ^PHp"1  indicated  by  the  Masoretic  punctuation  of  the  text  nrpp"  is  sustained  by  the  Sam.  and 

all  the  versions. 

3  Ver.  6.  The  sense  is  rather  obscured  than  helped  by  the  interpolated  and,  which  is  better  omitted. 

■*  Ver.  6.  The  Heb.  has  l^Tp  in  the  sing.,  doubtless  to  be  understood  as  an  abstract  term.    The  Sam.  and  all  the  ver- 
sions have  the  plural. 

5  Vera.  7,  B.  The  enaUage  of  numbers  creates  a  slight  obscurity,  bnt  the  A.  V.  faithfully  follows  the  Heb. 

•  Ver.  8.  The  Sam.,  LXX.,  and  Vulg.,  have  the  pronoun  in  the  third  person 

*  Ver.  14.  The  missing  conjunction  is  supplied  in  the  Sam.  and  the  versions. 

8  Ver.  20.  pi  signifies  something  small  or  thin.    The  text  of  the  A-  V.,  seems  preferable  to  the  margin,  as  it  is  scarcely 

to  be  supposed  that  the  case  of  the  dwarf  would  bo  omitted.  Fuerst,  however,  renders  it  consumjrtive  ;  Vnlg.,  hi  far-eyed, 
and  so  Onk.,  and  apparently  the  LXX.  e^ijAos.     Syr.  =  little. 

9  Ver.  23.  The  LXX.  has  the  sing,  to  dyiov.    The  plural  is  generally  understood  to  signify  the  holy  placo  and  the  holy 
of  holies  ;  some  interpreters,  however,  (Boothroyd,  Bosenmueller)  would  translate  my  hallowed  things. 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

Lange  :  u  The  symbolic  side  of  the  Levitical 
law,  which  was  brought  out  so  powerfully  at  the 
close  of  the  last  chapter,  is  likewise  not  to  be 
mistaken  in  the  commands  for  keeping  holy  the 
priestly  calling.  Owing  to  the  symbolic  mean- 
ing of  these  commands  they  are  connected  by 
manifold  analogies  with  heathen  laws  and  cus- 
toms enacted  to  secure  the  priestly  dignity. 
Compare  the  references  on  this  subject  in  Kno- 


bel,  p.  517  sqq. ;  Keil,  p.  141."  [Trans,  p.  430, 
432.  "  The  testimonies  which  Knobel  and  seve- 
ral of  the  older  commentators  have  collected  to 
show  that  the  priests  of  the  Egyptians,  Greeks, 
Romans  and  other  nations  avoided  funerals  and 
contact  with  the  dead,  afford  but  an  imperfect 
parallel    to    these    Levitical    laws    concerning 

the  priests Wherever  this  feeling 

was  recognized  in  a  ceremonial  usage,  the  priest, 
from  his  office,  would  naturally  be  expected  to 
observe  the  highest  standard  of  purity.  But  the 
laws  which  regulated  the  priesthood  of  the  chosen. 


160 


LEVITICUS. 


people  had  a  deeper  basis  than  this.  They  had 
to  administer  a  law  of  life.  ...  St.  Cyril  truly 
observes  that  the  Hebrew  priests  were  the  in- 
struments of  the  divine  will  for  averting  death, 
that  all  their  sacrifices  were  a  type  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  which  swallowed  up  death  in  victory, 
and  that  it  would  have  been  unsuitable  that  they 
should  have  the  same  freedom  as  other  people  to 
become  mourners.  Glaphyra  in  Lev.,  p.  430." 
Clark.— F.  G.]. 

"  In  the  first,  p'ace  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  there 
is  here  brought  out  a  gradation  of  the  symbolism 
that  the  laws  in  regard  to  dignity  are  stronger 
in  the  case  of  the  high-priest  than  in  the  case 
of  the  sons  of  Aaron,  the  common  priests.  While 
these,  who  were  at  first  Aaron's  sons,  were  ele- 
vated above  the  common  people  (as  this  also  out- 
ranked the  heathen  in  its  sanctity),  so  the  high- 
priest  again  was  raised  above  his  sons ;  he 
formed  the  symbolical  centre  and  summit  of  the 
personal  sanctity  towards  God,  and  of  exclusion 
as  respects  the  unclean  or  that  which  was  Levi- 
tically  '  common.'  "  Lange. 

With  this  chapter  begins  a  new  Parashah,  or 
Proper  Lesson  of  the  law  extending  through 
ch.  xxiv.  "  The  parallel  Ilaphtarah,  or  Proper 
Lesson  of  the  Prophe.s,  is  Ezek.  xliv.  15-31, 
which  contains  ordinances  for  the  priests,  and 
is  the  best  commentary  on  the  present  chapter." 
Wordsworth. 

The  purity  and  holiness  required  of  the  priest- 
hood in  this  chap,  is  evidently  a  necessary  con- 
sequence of  the  peculiar  relation  in  which  they 
stood  to  God  and  the  people.  It  is  substantially 
the  same  as  that  required  of  all  the  holy  people, 
but  is  emphasized  and  extended  somewhat  be- 
yond that  which  the  people  generally  were  able 
to  bear,  because  it  especially  devolved  upon  them 
to  "  draw  nigh  unto  the  Lord."  For  the  same 
reason  still  more  strict  obligations  are  laid  upon 
the  high-priests.  In  vers.  1-6  they  are  forbidden 
to  defile  themselves  by  touching  the  dead,  or  by 
signs  of  mourning  ;  in  7-9  they  are  required  to 
contract  a  spotless  marriage  and  maintain  purity 
in  their  families;  in  10-15  the  same  duties,  some- 
what exteuded,  are  still  more  emphatically  re- 
quired of  the  high-priest;  and  in  conclusion, 
vers.  16-24,  the  physical  impedimeats  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  priestly  office  are  detailed. 

Vers.  1—4.  The  priest  may  not  defile  himself 
on  account  of  a  dead  person  (ffSJ  lit,  a  soul), 
with  an  exception  however  in  the  case  of  the 
very  nearest  of  kin.  The  virgin  sister,  as  yet 
unbetrothed,  is  included  in  the  list;  but  after 
her  betrothal  or  marriage,  she  passed  into  the 
family  of  another,  and  the  exemption  ceases. 
The  principle  of  the  exception  seems  to  be  sim- 
ply a  regard  for  human  feelings.  The  fact  that 
the  tent  or  house  was  defiled,  ipso  facto,  by  the 
presence  of  a  dead  body,  and  therefore  the  priest 
could  not  avoid  defilement  in  such  cases  (Keil) 
forms  no  sufficient  explanation  of  the  exception  ; 
for  this  would  be  true  when  a  slave  died  in  the 
house,  which  is  not  included,  and  would  often 
not  be  true  in  the  case  of  a  father,  which  is  in- 
cluded. It  is  remarkable  that  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  the  wife — the  Rabbins  say  because  she 
and  her  husband  were  "one  flesh."  Lange  (see 
below)  makes  a  distinction  between  a  passive 


defilement  which  was  inevitable  in  the  case  of  a 
death  in  the  house,  and  which  is  too  self-evident 
to  require  especial  mention  ;  and  the  active  de- 
filement of  proclaiming  one's  grief,  using  the 
customary  marks  of  mourning  and  burying  the 
dead,  which  he  considers  were  forbidden  to  the 
priest,  as  belonging  to  the  class  of  the  chief  men, 
on  occasion  of  the  death  of  his  wife.  It  seems 
more  probable  that  the  instances  mentioned  in 
ver.  2  are  of  the  nature  of  limitations,  and  that 
the  marriage  relationship  is  not  mentioned  be- 
cause it  is  nearer  thau  any  of  them,  and  there- 
fore included  within  them  all.  Notwithstanding 
the  permission  in  the  eases  mentioned  above,  the 
priest,  by  contact  with  the  dead,  still  became 
defiled  for  seven  days,  and  was  then  required  to 
offer  a  sin  offering  (see  Ezek.  xliv.  25-27).  No 
penalty  is  provided  for  a  violation  of  this  law. 
On  ver.  4  see  Textual  Notes. 

Vers.  5,  6.  The  prohibition  to  the  priests  of 
the  marks  of  mouruing  for  the  dead,  customary 
among  the  surrounding  nations,  is  extended  in 
Deut.  xiv.  1  to  the  whole  body  of  the  people. 
The  command  to  the  priests  is  expressly  made  to 
rest  upon  their  official  duties.  On  the  expres- 
sion bread  of  their  God  see  on  iii.  11.  avh 
is  indifferently  rendered  in  the  A.  V.food,  bread, 
and  meat,  Ouly  the  last  is  objectionable  on  ac- 
count of  the  change  in  the  use  of  the  English 
word. 

Vers.  7-9.  The  marriage  of  the  priests  and  the 
life  of  their  families  likewise  must,  not  be  allowed 
to  present  a  contrast  to  their  holy  calling.  They 
might  marry  any  reputable  woman,  whether  Is- 
raelite or  foreigner,  excepting  of  course  women 
from  those  idolatrous  tribes  of  the  Canaanites 
which  were  forbidden  to  all  the  people.  Exod. 
xxxiv.  16;  Deut.  vii.  3.  In  after  times  this  law 
was  made  more  stringent,  Ezek.  xliv.  22.  They 
might  not  take  to  wife  a  common  prostitute,  nor 
one  profane,  i.  e.,  a  woman  who  had  fallen,  or 
as  some  Jewish  authorities  hold,  one  of  illegiti- 
mate birth.  Briefly,  their  wives  must  be  of  un- 
blemished and  spotless  character,  and  hence  they 
were  forbidden  to  take  one  already  repudiated. 
In  ver.  8  the  change  of  person  is  generally  held 
to  indicate  a  change  of  address  to  the  people  of 
Israel;  but  this  is  unnecessary.  It  is  simply 
the  ordinary  form  of  direct  command.  Because 
it  was  the  priest's  office  to  offer  the  bread  of 
thy  God,  therefore  his  life  and  surroundings 
must  be  in  harmony  with  his  holy  calling.  The 
priest's  family,  also,  by  a  propriety  felt  in  all 
ages,  must,  be  ordered  in  accordance  with  his 
sacred  duties,  and  the  outrageous  violation  of 
this  in  his  daughter's  becoming  a  prosi  itute  must 
not  only  be  punished  with  death,  but  the  dead 
body  be  visited  with  the  symbolical  punishment 
of  burning. 

Vers.  10—15.  The  same  commands  are  applied 
with  greater  emphasis,  and  with  some  extension, 
to  the  high-priest.  He  is  described  by  the  pecu- 
liar fulness  of  the  anointing  he  had  received 
(vers.  10,  12),  and  by  his  being  consecrated 
to  put  on  the  garments,  viz.,  those  appointed 
for  the  official  costume  of  the  high-priest,  in 
which  Aaron  had  been  arrayed  at  his  consecra- 
tion; and  which  descended  to  his  successors.  To 
him  the  accustomed  marks  of  mourniug,  and  all 


CHAP.  XXI.  1-24. 


161 


contact  with  a  dead  body,  even  that  of  the  near- 
est relative,  are  forbidden.  He  must  not  go  out 
of  the  sanctuary  for  this  purpose  (not  that 
the  sanctuary  was  to  be  his  constant  abode,  Bllhr 
and  Baunigarten),  nor  profane  the  sanctuary 
by  this  defilement  of  his  person.  He  was  also 
restricted  in  marriage  to  a  virgin  of  Israel,  ver. 
14;  by  any  other  marriage  he  would  profane 
his  seed. 

Lange  :  "Whatever  may  belong  to  the  defile- 
ment by  the  dead,  it  is  certainly  to  be  noticed 
that  nothing  is  here  said  in  any  way  of  dying 
persons,  or  of  death  itself,  but  of  dead  bodies. 
The  recollection  of  Egypt,  especially  of  the  Egyp- 
tian cultus  of  dead  bodies  conies  here  into  the 
foreground.  The  defilement  by  the  dead  in- 
cluded not  merely  the  touching  in  itself,  which 
is  so  natural  to  excited  grief,  but  also  the  parti- 
cipation in  the  burial,  and  the  customs  of  mourn- 
ing. But  that  which  among  the  heathen  was  an 
expression  of  horror,  so  that  it  was  said  even  of 
Apollo  himself,  Let  him  shun  the  scenes  of  death, 
appears  here  rather  as  a  prelude  of  the  subli- 
mity of  the  Christian  view  of  death.  The  hor- 
ror would  indeed  appear  strongest  at  the  sight 
of  the  dead  body  of  a  blood  relative,  yet  here 
humanity  places  itself  on  the  opposite  side  as  a 
limit  of  the  symbolism,  and  allows  the  defilement 
in  the  case  of  the  nearest  family  relations  with 
the  exception  of  the  married  sister  who  now  be- 
longs to  another  family  circle.  Ver.  4  certainly 
appears  to  say  that  a  man  as  a  husband  shall 
not  defile  himself  for  the  dead  body  of  his  wife, 
as  the  foregoing  specification  and  determination 
concerning  the  married  sister  might  already  in- 
timate. Concerning  this,  see  below/'  [above 
under  ver.  4].  "  The  reason  is  well  expressed 
in  ver.  6 :  for  the  offerings  of  the  LORD 
made  by  fire,  the  bread  of  their  God  they 
do  offer. — Since  they  know,  or  at  least  have 
some  idea  of  what  the  sacrifice  signifies — an  en- 
tire resignation  to  the  living  God, — they  cannot 
mourn  and  despair  as  those  who  have  little  or 
no  hope,  without  strengthening  the  delusion  of 
despair,  by  which  the  Israelites  would  dishonor 
the  name  of  their  God,  Jehovah.  There  is  an 
extravagance  of  lamentation  which  takes  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  resentment  and  contention  with 
God  in  regard  to  the  dead  ;  among  the  people  of 
God  this  should  be  excluded  by  the  feeling  of 
reverence  : — the  Lord  has  done  it. 

"  Three  kinds  of  women  are  excluded  from 
the  priestly  marriage:  the  whore,  the  profane, 
the  divorced.  To  the  high-priest  the  taking 
of  a  widow  is  also  forbidden.  We  call  to  mind 
Thamar,  Rahab,  Ruth,  and  Bathsheba,  who  be- 
came ancestors  in  Israel  (Matt.  i. ),  and  it  is  thus 
plain  thaUhe  subject  is  here  a  purely  Old  Tes- 
tament regulation  of  symbolical  signification. 
By  the  marriage  of  the  priest  with  a  virgin  is 
signified  that  the  theocratic  marriage  could  and 
should  be  consecrated  to  the  rearing  up  of  the 
hereditary  blessing  (see  Jno.  i.  13,  14).  Thus 
also  he  was  to  appear  to  the  people  as  a  conse- 
crated personality.  But  the  dark  contrast  is  the 
ruined  priestly  family,*  and  the  saddest  instance 
is  the  ruined  priest's  daughter;  if  she  has  only 


*  "Or  also  the  family  of  a  pnator.    In  a  poem  by  Heine  it 
is  depicted  with  dark  touches." 


begun  to  be  a  whore,  she  has  fallen  under  the 
judgment  of  fire. 

*'  The  third  division  treats  of  the  sons  of  the 
priests  having  bodily  defects,  or  afflicted  with 
corporeal  blemishes  (wherein  spiritual  reasons 
are  evidently  included).  Here  also  the  prevail- 
ing symbolical  purpose  is  not  to  be  mistaken. 
The  sacrificers  must  appear  as  the  type  of  per- 
fection, as  also  the  sacrifice  in  the  following  sec- 
tion. Hence  the  blind  and  lame,  the  sons  of 
Aaron  with  misshapen  noses  and  limbs,  having 
some  bodily  defect  in  hand  or  foot,  etc.  (vers.  18- 
20)  correspond  to  the  faulty  sacrificial  animals, 
ch.  xxii.  23-25.  The  strong  exclusion  demanded 
by  the  cultus  for  the  sake  of  its  symbolism  was 
compensated  by  the  compassionate  provision 
that  they  should  have  their  portion  of  all  sacri- 
ficial food  of  the  active  priests,  whereby  they  are 
in  some  sort  to  be  compared  with  Emeritus  offi- 
cials who  draw  their  full  salary.  They  do  not 
offer  the  bread  of  their  God,  as  the  offerings 
are  collectively  called,  inasmuch  as  these  culmi- 
nated in  the  shew-bread  ;  but  yet  they  eat  the 
bread  of  their  God,  as  well  of  the  most  holy 
as  of  the  holy,  i.  e.,  not  only  of  the  wave  offer- 
ings, firstlings,  etc.  (Num.  xviii.  11,  19,  and  26- 
29)  but  also  of  the  peculiar  priestly  portion  of 
the  sacrifices,  the  oblations,  etc.  See  Keil,  p.  34 
[Trans,  p.  433].  But  if  the  priestly  access  unto 
the  vail  and  unto  the  altar  is  denied  them, 
it  appears  that  this  is  here  spoken  of  their  offi- 
cial functions.  Moreover  it  is  emphasized  that 
Moses  communicated  these  commands  not  only 
unto  Aaron  and  to  his  sons  ;  but  unto  all 
the  children  of  Israel  who  ought  to  know  how 
their  priests  should  conduct  themselves."   Lange. 

A  death  in  a  dwelling  defiled  every  thing  in 
the  dwelling,  and  every  one  who  entered  it. 
Deaths,  however,  must  necessarily  occur  in 
priestly  families  beyond  the  limits  of  the  allow- 
able cases  of  defilement,  and  also  in  the  house 
of  the  high-priest  to  whom  no  defilement  what- 
ever was  allowed.  Lange  therefore  well  says, 
"A  distinction  must  be  made  between  passive 
sorrow  and  defilement,  which  might  happen  even 
to  the  high-priest  in  his  own  house,  and  active 
uucleanness  which  came  about  by  the  rending 
of  the  clothes  and  going  to  the  dead  body." 
Accordingly  the  prohibition  to  the  high-priest  is 
couched  in  terms  (vers.  10-12)  indicating  the  ac- 
tive defilement. 

Vers.  16-24.  These  directions  concerning  the 
descendants  of  Aaron  who  should  have  any  bodily 
defect  are  founded  upon  the  general  principle, 
appearing  in  every  part  of  the  law,  that  what- 
ever is  devoted  to  the  service  of  God  should  be 
as  perfect  as  possible  in  its  kind.  "As  the  spi- 
ritual nature  of  a  man  is  reflected  in  his  bodily 
form,  only  a  faultless  condition  of  body  could 
correspond  to  the  holiness  of  the  priest;  just  as 
the  Greeks  and  Romans  required,  for  the  very 
same  reason,  that  the  priests  should  be  bld^r/poi, 
integri  corporis  (Plato  de  legg.  6,  759  ;  Seneca  ex- 
cerpt, controv.  4,  2;  Plutarch  gusest.  rom.  73). 
Consequently  none  of  the  descendants  of  Aaron 
in  their  generations,  i.  e.,  in  all  future  gene- 
rations (see  Ex.  xii.  14),  were  to  approach  the 
vail,  i.  e.,  enter  the  holy  place,  or  draw  near  to 
the  altar  (in  the  court)  to  offer  the  food  of  Jeho- 
vah, viz.,  the  sacrifices."  Keil.     Persons  thus  in- 


162 


LEVITICUS. 


capacitated  for  the  exercise  of  the  active  duties 
of  the  priesthood  are  yet  especially  allowed  to 
partake  of  the  priests'  portion  of  the  sacrifices 
(ver.  22),  and  doubtless  received  their  share  of 
the  tithes  for  the  support  of  the  priests.  By 
custom  they  were  employed  in  many  duties  per- 
taining to  the  priesthood  which  did  not  require 
the  prohibited  approach  to  the  altar  or  entrance 
into  the  holy  place  ;  such  as  the  examination  of 
leprous  persons,  houses,  and  things,  the  carrying 
of  the  ashes  without  the  camp,  and  many  duties 
of  a  similar  character. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  Moses  is  di- 
rected to  make  this  communication  to  the 
priests  the  sons  of  Aaron;  at  the  end  (ver. 
24)  we  read  that  he  told  it  not  only  to  them,  but 
unto  all  the  children  of  Israel.  This  is  in 
accordance  with  the  whole  character  of  the  law. 
Each  particular  communication  is  immediately 
addressed  to  those  whose  duties  it  concerns;  but 
at  the  same  time,  no  part  of  the  law  was  to  be 
the  exclusive  possession,  or  under  the  exclusive 
guardianship  of  any  class.  Every  part  of  it  was 
to  be  diligently  taught  to  every  Israelite.  The 
Divine  law  was  the  common  heritage  of  all,  and 
all  were  interested inseeing  thatit  was  observed. 

DOCTRINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  All  the  precepts  of  this  chapter  tend  to  a 
single  point— the  peculiar  purity  and  symbolical 
holiness  required  of  those  who  ministered  before 
God.  From  the  centre  of  the  absolute  Divine 
holiness  spread  out  ever-widening  circles,  and  to 
each  is  attached  a  minimum  of  symbolical  holi- 
ness without  which  it  cannot  be  entered.  The 
heathen  in  the  outermost  circle,  as  human  beings, 
still  had  the  light  of  nature  and  conscience; 
these  laid  upon  them  duties  for  the  violation  of 
which  they  were  cast  out  of  their  homes  and  de- 
stroyed ;  the  people  of  Israel  formed  an  inner 
circle  of  higher  obligations ;  but  those  chosen 
from  them  to  draw  nigh  to  God  on  their  behalf, 
must  come  under  a  still  stricter  rule.  All  this 
points  unmistakably  to  the  holiness  of  Him  who 
is  the  centre  of  all,  and  shows  that  the  partaking 
of  His  holiness  is  the  necessary  condition  of  ap- 
proach to  Him. 

II.  The  families  of  the  priests  were  so  inti- 
mately associated  with  their  own  proper  person- 
ality, that  something  of  the  requirements  for  the 
priests  themselves  must  also  be  demanded  of 
them.  This  rests  upon  a  fundamental  principle 
of  fitness,  and  is  again  repeatedly  insisted  upon 
in  the  New  Testament  in  regard  to  the  Christian 
minister.     See  1  Tim.  iii.  11,  12;  Tit.  i.  6. 

III.  The  absolute  holiness  required  of  those 
who  presented  offerings  to  God  could  be  only 
symbolical ;  but  the  fact  that  it  was  symbolical 
points  to  One  who  fulfilled  the  symbolism,  even 
to  Christ,  who  was  alone  perfect  in  holiness  ; 
therefore  through  Him  alone  can  any  acceptable 
gifts  be  offered  to  God. 

V.  Physical  blemishes,  because  they  symbo- 
lized spiritual  defects,  hindered  the  priests  from 
ministering  before  God  on  man's  behalf;  yet 
these  did  not  prevent  their  eating  of  the  sacri- 
fices, thus  at  once  receiving  their  own  support, 
and  representing  Ood  in  the  receiving  of  that 
which  the  sacrificer  offered.  Thus  is  brought 
out  the  two-fold  relation  in  those  who  minister 


for  the  people  toward  God :  on  the  one  hand  they 
may  only  draw  nigh  to  Him  on  the  basis  of  per- 
fect holiness,  and  for  sinful  man  this  can  be  ac- 
complished only  through  the  mediation  of  Christ ; 
on  the  other,  the  grace  proceeding  from  Him  is 
not  hindered  by  the  unworthiness  of  those 
through  whom  it  comes.  Always  we  must  "have 
this  treasure  in  earthen  vessels."  The  feeble 
stream  from  man  to  God  would  be  turned  back 
by  the  obstacles  in  its  chaunel  but  for  the  all- 
availing  efficacy  of  the  intercession  of  Christ; 
but  the  full  flow  of  God's  mercies  in  Christ  is 
powerful  enough  to  sweep  by  all  such  barriers. 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

"The  person,  life  and  house  of  the'priest  must 
especially  be  kept  holy.  For  this,  the  law  of 
God  knows  a  more  human  way  than  the  law  of 
the  Pope  (xxi.  13).  The  features  of  the  symbo- 
lical consecrated  state  of  the  priest  are  spiritu- 
ally explained.  The  fearful  picture  of  a  dese- 
crated, profane,  or  very  vicious  priestly  house. 
How  far  also  can  the  sacrifice  be  designated  as 
the  bread  of  God  ?  In  reference  to  the  Being  of 
God  Himself,  the  true  sacrifice  is  an  object  of 
His  good  pleasure.  In  reference  to  the  power 
of  God,  it  is  the  noblest  and  most  fitting  means 
of  drawing  near  to  His  fire.  In  reference  to  the 
idea  of  God  in  the  world,  it  is  a  perpetual  means 
of  freshening,  deepening,  and  strengthening  it." 
Lange. 

The  priestly  requirement  of  holiness,  symbo- 
lical of  old  for  those  whose  office  it  was  to  draw 
near  to  God,  must  rest  now  in  its  literal  force 
upon  all  Christians,  "  a  royal  priesthood,"  who 
must  ever  draw  near  by  the  new  and  living  way 
consecrated  for  them.  As  the  headship  of  the 
priest  over  his  household  required  that  they  also 
should  present  no  striking  contrast  to  his  purity  ; 
so,  on  the  same  principle,  it  must  be  incumbent 
upon  all  men  that  those  over  whom  they  have 
influence  and  control  should  be  so  ordered  in 
their  lives  as  not  to  present  to  the  world  a  con- 
trast to  the  principles  they  themselves  profess. 

Excessive  mourning  is  forbidden  to  the  priests; 
all  mourning  is  restricted  to  the  circle  of  the 
nearest  relations,  and  to  the  high-priest  is  for- 
bidden altogether.  Thus  is  clearly  shown  that 
however  on  earth  something  may  be  conceded  to 
the  weakness  of  sorrowing  humanity,  yet  sorrow 
for  the  departed  is  not  the  proper  garb  in  which 
to  draw  near  to  God.  This  is  more  fully  de- 
clared through  Him  who  is  the  Resurrection  and 
the  Life,  and  the  Christian  cannot  sorrow  for 
those  who  sleep  in  Him  as  men  without  hope. 
Thus  the  reproof  of  excessive  indulgence  in  sor- 
row, so  plainly  brought  out  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation, is  here  foreshadowed  by  the  laws 
of  the  Mosaic  covenant.     . 

In  ver.  24  we  see  that,  although  the  priests 
were  separated  from  the  people  by  their  special 
divine  appointment,  the  laws  for  their  govern- 
ment were  yet  communicated  to  all  the  people 
that  they  might  be  under  the  observation  of  the 
whole  community  in  their  conduct.  So  it  must 
ever  be  if  the  ministry  is  to  be  preserved  in  its 
purity  ;  and  the  germs  of  decay  are  already  sown 
in  that  body  which  refuses  to  recognize  its  re- 
sponsibility to  the  public  opinion  of  the  Chris- 
tian community. 


CHAP.  XXII.  1-33.  163 


B.— "KEEPING   HOLT  OF  THE   SACRIFICE,  OR  OF  WHAT   HAS  BEEN   HALLOWED."— 

Lange. 

Chapter  XXII.  1-33. 

1,  2  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  Aaron  and  to  his  sons, 
that  they  separate  themselves  from  the  holy  things  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and 
that  they  profane  not  my  holy  name  in  those  things  which  they  hallow  unto  me :  I 

3  am  the  Lord.  Say  unto  them,  Whosoever  he  be  of  all  your  seed  among  your 
generations,  that  gocth  unto  the  holy  things,  which  the  children  of  Israel  hallow 
unto  the  Lord,  having  his  uncleanness  upon  him,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from 

4  my  presence:  I  am  the  Lord.  What  man  soever  of  the  seed  of  Aaran  is  a  leper, 
or  hath  a  running  issue ;  he  shall  not  eat  of  the  holy  things,  until  he  be  clean. 
And  whoso  toucheth  any  thing  that  is  unclean  by  the  dead,  or  a  man   whose  seed 

5  goeth  from  him ;  or  whosoever  toucheth  any1  creeping  thing,  whereby  he  may  be 
made  unclean,  or  a  man  of  whom  he  may  take  uncleanness,2  whatsoever  uncleanness 

6  he  hath;  the  soul  which  hath  touched  any  such  shall  be  unclean  until  even,  and 

7  shall  not  eat  of  the  holy  things,  unless  he  wash  [bathe3]  his  flesh  with  water.  And 
when  the  sun  is  down,  he  shall  be  clean,  and  shall  afterward  eat  of  the  holy  things; 

8  because  it  is  his  food.     That  which  dieth  of  itself,  or  is  torn  with  beasts,  he  shall 

9  not  eat  to  defile  himself  therewith :  I  am  the  Lord.  They  shall  therefore  keep 
mine  ordinance,*  lest  they  bear  sin  for  it,  and  die  therefore,  if  they  profane  it :  I 
the  Lord  do  sanctify  them. 

10  There  shall  no  stranger  eat  of  the  holy  thing  :  a  sojourner  of  the  priest,  or  an 

11  hired  servant,  shall  not  eat  of  the  holy  thing.  But  if  the  priest  buy  any  soul  with 
his  money,  he  shall  eat  of  it,  and  he5  that  is  born  in  his  house :  they  shall  eat  of 

12  his  meat  [food6].     If  the  priest's  daughter  also  be  married  unto  a  stranger,  she 

13  may  not  cat  of  an  offering  of  the  holy  things.  But  if  the  priest's  daughter  be  a 
widow,  or  divorced,  and  have  no  child,  and  is  returned  unto  her  father's  house,  as' 
in  her  youth,  she  shall  eat  of  her  lather's  meat  [food6]  :  but  there  shall  no  stranger 

14  eat  thereof.  And  if  a  man  cat  of  the  holy  thing  unwittingly  [inadvertently8],  then 
he  shall  put  the  fifth  part  thereof  unto  it,  and  shall  give  it  unto  the  priest  with  the 

15  holy  thing.     And  they  shall  not  profane  the  holy  things  of  the  children  of  Israel, 

16  which  they  offer9  unto  the  Lord;  or  suffer  them  to  bear  the  iniquity  of  trespass, 
when  they  eat  [or,  lade  themselves  with  the  iniquity  of  trespass  in  their  eating10] 
their  holy  things :  for  I  the  Lord  do  sanctify  them. 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  5.  The  Sam.  and  LXX.  Bupply  the  word  unclean.  According  to  the  law,  tho  "creeping  thing"  cotlld  only  com- 
municate uncleanness  when  dead. 

2  Ver,  o.jRosenmuller  translates :  or  a  man  who  may  be  unclean  on  account  of  it,  sc.  the  creeping  thing.  He  refers  the 
pronoun  in  V?  to  y^iy. 

3  Ver.  0.   ym.    See  Textual  Note  »  on  xiv.  8. 

*  Ver.  9.  ,J1*1DB'D— TW  ^*10C/.    The  want  of  an  appropriate  verb  and  noun  from  tho  same  root  in  English  makes  it 
•    :  -  :   •        v         :  t 
impossible  to  give  the  full  force  of  this  phrase  so  often  impressively   repeated.     See   Gen.  xxvi.  5;  Lev.  viii.  35;  Num.  iii. 
7 ;  ix.  10.     Lange  uses  a  paraphrase  :   Vnd  sie  soUen  beobachten,  was  gegen  mich  ztt  beobachten  ist. 

6  Ver.  11.  The  Sam.,  LXX.  and  Chald.  have  the  plural. 

«  Ver.  11.  l'Sn  73-    See  Com.  on  xxi.  6.    On  the  daghesh  in  the  0  see  Textual  Note  »  on  iv.  13. 

7  Ver.  13.  Sixteen  MSS.  for  the  particle  of  comparison  2  have  3- 

8  Ver.  14.   rUJn3.     See  Textual  Note  1  on  iv.  2. 

"    tt  :    • 
0  Ver.  15.  $0*V,  lit.  which  they  heave  or  lift  up;  but  evidently  the  reference  is  more  general  than  to  the  heave-offer- 

•  T 

ings.  and  the  off  r  of  the  A.  V.  is  by  all  means  to  be  retained. 

10  Ver.  16.  The  sense  of  this  verse  is  doubtful.  The  A.  V.,  Patrick,  Pool,  Keil  and  others  refer  the  pronouns  them  and 
they  to  the  people,  and  understand  the  precept  that  the  priests  should  prevent  the  people  from  eating  of  the  holy  things 
which  it  belonged  to  the  priests  to  eat;  on  the  other  hand,  tho  margin  of  the  A.  V.,  Calvin,  Knobel.  Zunz,  Riggs  and  Lange 
understand  it  as  meaning  lade  themselves  icilh  the  iniquity  of  trespass  in  their  eating.  The  latter  is  more  in  accordance  with 
the  general  subject  of  the  chapter,  and  is  preferable.    So  the  LXX.  understood  by  the  use  of  e'avToiiy.    So  Houbigant. 


164 


LEVITICUS. 


19 
20 


17,  18  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  Aaron,  and  to  his  sons, 
and  unto  all  the  children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  Whatsoever  he  be  of  the 
house  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers"  in  Israel,  that  will  offer  his  oblatiou  [offering12] 
for  all  [any  of]  his  vows,  and  for  all  [any  of  J  his  free-will  offerings,  which  they 
will  offer  unto  the  Lord  for  a  burnt  offering ;  ye  shall  offer  at  your  own  will  [for 
your  acceptance13]  a  male  without  blemish,  of  the  beeves,  of  the  sheep,  or  of  the 
goats.     But  whatsoever  hath  a  blemish,  that  shall  ye  not  offer :  for  it  shall  not  be 

21  acceptable  for  you  And  whosoever  offereth  a  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings  unto  the 
Lord  to  accomplish  his  vow,  or  a  freewill  offering  in  beeves  or  sheep  [of  the  flock14], 

22  it  shall  be  perfect  to  be  accepted :  there  shall  be  no  blemish  therein.  Blind,  or 
broken,  or  maimed,15  or  having  a  wen  [or  ulcerous16],  or  scurvy,  or  scabbed,  ye 
shall  not  offer  these  unto  the  Lord,  nor  make  au  offering  by  fire  of  them  upon  the 

23  altar  unto  the  Lord.  Either  a  bullock  or  a  lamb  [one  of  the  flock17]  that  hath 
anything  superfluous18  or  lacking  in  his  parts,  that  mayest  thou  offer  for  a  freewill 

24  offering ;  but  for  a  vow  it  shall  not  be  accepted.  Ye  shall  not  offer  unto  the  Lord 
that  which  is  bruised,  or  crushed,  or  broken,  or  cut ;  neither  shall  ye  make  any 

25  offering  thereof  [make  such1*]  in  your  land.  Neither  from  a  stranger's20  hand  shall 
ye  offer  the  bread  of  your  God  of  any  of  these ;  because  their  corruption  is  in  them, 
and  blemishes  be  in  them  :  they  shall  not  be  accepted  for  you. 

26,  27  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  When  a  bullock,  or  a  sheep,  or  a 
goat,  is  brought  forth,  then  it  shall  be  seven  days  under  the  dam  ;  and  from  the 
eighth  day  and  thenceforth  it  shall  be  accepted  for  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto 
the  Lord.  And  whether  it  be  cow  or  ewe  [female  of  the  flock21],  ye  shall  not  kill 
it  and  her  young  both  in  one  day. 

And  when  ye  will  offer  a  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving  unto  the  Lord,  offer  it  at 

30  your  own  will  [for  your  acceptance13].  On  the  same  day  it  shall  be  eaten  up  ;  ye 
shall  leave  none  of  it  until  the  morrow :  I  am  the  Lord. 

Therefore  shall  ye  keep  my  commandments,  and  do  them :  I  am  the  Lord. 
Neither  shall  ye  profane  my  holy  name  ;  but  I  will  be  hallowed  among  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel :  I  am  the  Lord  which  hallow  you,  that  brought  you  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  to  be  your  God :  I  am  the  Lord. 


23 


29 


31 
32 
33 


11  Ver.  18.  The  Sam.,  14  MSS  ,  and  all  tbe  ancient  versions  supply  that  sojourn, 
13  Ver.  18.    imp.     See  Textual  Note  -  on  ii.  1. 
I  t  :  It    . 

13  Ver.  19.   DJJi"l7-    See  Textual  Note  *  on  i.  3.    Comp.  also  Ter.  21. 

14  Ver.  21.  |Xi'3  includes  both  sheep  (A.  V.)  and  goats  (marg.).  It  is  better  therefore  to  use  the  ordinary  comprehen- 
sive term. 

15  Ver.  22.  On  the  precise  sense  of  V^nn,  the  authorities  differ.    LXX.  yXwavoT fj.riTQv=having  the  tongue  cut;  Targ. 

Jon.=havin<i  the  eyelids  torn;  Jerome,  eicatricem  habens.     The  A.  V.  has  followed  the  Targ.  Onk.  in  a  sense  which  may  be 
considered  as  sufficiently  general  to  include  all  the  others. 

16  Ver.  22.  H  /3\  adj.  fern,  from  S^^fo  floxc.     It  is  an-.  Key.,  but  there  seems  no  doubt  of  its  meaning. 

W  Ver.  23.  J"|iy  ia  neither  specifically  a  lamb  (A.  V.)  nor  a  hid  (marg.),  but  may  be  either.  See  Textual  Note  14  on 
ver.  21.    Gesen. :  "a  noun  of  unity  corresponding  to  the  collect.  TX3f»  a  flock,  so.  of  sheep  or  goats." 

18  Ver.  23.  J,*}"")^  is  an  animal  which  has  an  inequality  between  the  corresponding  parts,  as  the  two  legs,  or  two 

eyes,  so  that  one  of  them  is  longer  or  larger  than  it  should  be;  while   Oi/p>  °Q  the  other  hand,  signifies  one  having  such 

It 
part  smaller  than  its  normally  developed  fellow. 

19  Ver.  24  According  to  all  authorities  the  preceding  clause  refers  to  the  four  ways  of  castration  practised  among  the 
ancients  (see  Aristot.  hid.  an.  ix.  37,  3,  and  the  other  authorities  cited  by  Knobel  and  Keil);  the  latter  clause  contains,  inci- 
dentally, an  absolute  prohibition  of  such  customs  in  the  land,  and  has  DOthing  to  do  with  sacrifice,  there  being  no  word 
for  offering  in  the  Neb.  Such  is  the  interpretation  of  Josephus  (Ant.  iv.  8,  40)  and  of  the  Jewish  authorities  generally. 
So  also  tbe  LXX.,  the  Targs.,  and  the  Vulg.  The  sense  of  the  A.  V.,  however,  is  found  in  the  Syr.*  and  is  sustained  by 
Knobel  and  Lontce,  who  says  expressly:  "It  is  particularly  to  be  noticed  that  castration  of  animals  was  not  universally 
forbidden  in  I&rsiel,  only  no  castrated  animals  might  be  offered  in  sacrifice." 

20  Ver.  25.   "13J-J3,  a  different  word  from  the  IT   of  ver.  10  and  the  "lj  of  ver.  18,  and  probably  referring  to  a  for- 

T"    Iv  t 

eigner,  not  even  Bojonrning  in  the  land.. 

21  Ver.  28.  See  Note  "  on  ver.  23.  1j2~riX1  IjIX  in  masc.  form ;  but  Rosenmuller  notes  that  in  regard  to  brute  ani- 
mals, the  verbs,  as  well  as  the  nouns  and  adjectives,  take  no  note  of  Bex. 


EXEGETICAL   AND    CRITICAL. 

Tbe  analysis  of  this  chapter  given  by  Keil  is 
a  very  clear  one.  "Vers.  1-16.  Reverence 
for  things  sanctified.— The  law  on  this  mat- 


ter was  (1)  that  no  priest  who  had  become  un- 
clean was  to  touch  or  eat  them  (vers.  2-9),  and 
(2)  that  no  one  was  to  eat  of  them  who  was  not 
a  member  of  the  priestly  family  (vers.  10-16). 
Vers.  17-33.  Acceptable  Sacrifices."  Lange 
introduces   the    chapter   thus:    "The    keeping 


CHAP.  XXII.  1-33. 


165 


holy  of  the  sacrifice  was  to  correspond  to  the 
keeping  holy  of  the  priesthood,  since  this  is 
indeed  at  the  bottom  an  expression  of  keeping 
the  priesthood  holy.  It  was  most  strongly  in- 
sisted upon."  The  centre,  however,  of  the 
whole  Levitical  system  is  rather  the  sacrifice 
than  the  priest,  and  the  priest  is  for  the  sake  of 
the  sacrifice,  as  is  distinctly  brought  out  in  this 
chapter,  rather  than  the  reverse.  Certainly  the 
sacrifice  was  earlier,  and  the  necessity  for  it 
more  fundamental.  The  symbolical  holiness  of 
the  priesthood  must  therefore  be  considered  as 
an  essential  requirement  in  order  to  their  offer- 
ing of  acceptable  sacrifices.  Lange  thus  ana- 
lyzes the  chapter:  "a.  In  relation  to  the  con- 
duct of  the  priest,  vers.  3-9.  b.  In  relation  to 
the  conduct  of  the  laity,  vers.  10-16.  c.  In 
relation  to  the  condition  of  the  sacrificial  ani- 
mals, and  especially  to  the  fact  that  everything 
defective  was  excluded,  vers.  17-25;  but  also 
that  every  proper  offering  was  to  be  offered  to 
the  Lord  in  the  right  way,  or  to  be  eaten  as  a 
thank-offering,  vers.  26-33." 

The  chapter  consists  of  three  Divine  commu- 
nications, all  given  to  Moses,  the  first  (vers. 
1-16)  to  be  communicated  to  Aaron  and  his  sons, 
prescribing  under  what  conditions  the  priests 
are  not  to  touch  the  offerings  (1-0),  and  who 
beside  the  priests  might  partake  of  them  (10-16) ; 
the  second  (17-25)  is  to  be  communicated  not 
only  to  Aaron,  but  unto  all  the  children  of 
Israel,  determining  the  quality  of  the  victims  ; 
while  the  third  (26-33)  is  to  Moses  alone,  pre- 
scribing certain  conditions  to  be  observed  with 
all  victims,  and  concluding  the  chapter. 

Vers.  1-9.  For  his  view  of  the  difficult  passage 
in  ver.  2,  Lange  refers  to  his  translation,  which 
runs  thus:  that  they  profane  not  my  holy- 
name — even  they,  -who  have  it  in  charge 
to  keep  holy  for  Me,"  thus  referring  the 
relative  "*£'X  to  the  name.  Other  commenta- 
tors refer  it  to  the  holy  things  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  as  in  the  A.  V.,  LXX.  and 
Vulg.  (Rosenmiiller,  Knobel,  Kalisch,  Murphy, 
Keil,  Clark,  etc.).  The  sense  of  the  whole  verse 
is  certainly  that  the  priests  should  not  profane 
the  holy  gifts  of  the  people  by  approaching  them 
when  themselves  in  a  condition  unlawful  for 
priestly  ministrations.  The  expression  sepa- 
rate themselves  from  the  holy  things  is 
clearly  to  be  understood  as  meaning  under  the 
circumstances  mentioned  below.  ""ljin  with 
]D,  to  keep  away,  separate  one's  self  from  any- 
thing, ;'.  e.  not  to  regard  or  treat  them  as  on  a 
par  with  unconsecrated  things."  Keil.  The 
Divine  acceptance  of  the  sacrifices  was  expressed 
by  the  priests'  eating  certain  parts  of  them  as 
the  representatives  of  God.  These  were  allowed 
to  be  eaten  by  those  who  were  permanently  dis- 
qualified by  physical  defects  from  offering  the 
sacrifices  (xxi.  22);  but  if  consumed  by  those 
in  a  state  of  uncleanness,  would  be  a  profanation 
of  the  name  of  the  Lord.  The  prohibition  ex- 
tends not  only  to  the  eating,  but  to  the  touching 
them  at  all.  Ver.  3.  Shall  be  cut  off  from 
my  presence  is  considered  by  Rosenmiiller 
and  others  as  equivalent  to  the  expression  "  shall 
be  cut  off  from  the  midst  of  his  people."  A  bet- 
ter  interpretation    (Knobel,   Clark)   is    that   it 


means:  "  shall  be  excluded  from  the  sanctuary" 
— deprived  of  his  priestly  office.  Lange,  how- 
ever, interprets  it  that  "  the  penalty  of  death  is 
pronounced  upon  every  one  of  the  priestly  family 
who  approaches  the  holy  things  in  a  state  of 
uncleanness,  whether  it  be  to  offer  or  to  eat  the 
priestly  sacrificial  food."  But  he  afterwards 
adds  :  "  With  the  positive  death  penalty  is  con- 
nected at  the  same  time  a  mysterious  destiny 
of  death,  which  Jehovah  reserves  to  Himself. 
The  legislation  has  as  yet  no  idea  of  the  ruder 
forms  of  desecration  of  the  sacrifice  in  the  future 
as  e.  g.  1  Sam.  ii.  12  sqq."  This  was  the  pe- 
nalty attached  to  the  violation  of  any  of  the  pre- 
cepts in  this  paragraph.  The  uncleannesses 
mentioned  in  vers.  4-0  have  already  been  treated 
in  their  appropriate  places.  They  are  only 
mentioned  here  as  showing  that  they  excluded 
the  priest  from  contact  with  holy  things.  Vers. 
6,  7,  prescribe  for  the  priest,  as  for  the  people 
in  similar  cases,  the  simplest  forms  of  purifica- 
tion, and  when  these  are  observed,  limit  the 
time  of  the  uncleanness  to  the  going  down  of  the 
sun.  In  accordance  with  the  considerate  cha- 
racter of  the  Divine  legislation,  it  then  allows 
him  to  eat  of  the  sacrifice,  because  it  is  his 
food.  In  ver.  8  the  eating  of  that  which  had 
not  been  properly  slain,  and  was  therefore  still 
contaminated  with  the  blood,  is  forbidden  with 
especial  emphasis  to  the  priests  whose  othce  was 
to  make  atonement  with  the  blood.  This  had 
already  been  forMdden  to  all  the  people  (xi.  39, 
40)  with  but  a  slight  penalty  for  transgression. 
Here  the  transgression  for  the  priest  comes 
under  the  heavier  sentence  of  ver.  3.  Calvin 
notes  that  such  a  special  prohibition  was  needed 
lest  the  priests  might  think  themselves,  in  virtue 
of  their  office,  exempt  from  the  laws  binding 
upon  the  rest  of  the  people.  Ver.  9.  Lest 
they  bear  sin  for  it,  and  die  therefore, 
gives  the  penalty  in  general  of  a  priestly  ne- 
glect to  keep  God's  ordinance,  but  is  not 
necessarily  to  be  understood  of  the  penalty  for 
the  breach  of  each  particular  precept  mentioned. 
The  command  herei  as  everywhere,  is  made  to 
rest  upon  the  consideration,  I  the  LORD  do 
sanctify  them. 

Vers.  10-16.  This  forms  the  second  part  of 
the  first  Divine  communication,  and  prescribes 
who  beside  the  priests  themselves  might  or  might 
not  eat  of  the  holy  things.  It  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  most  holy  things  which  could  be  eaten 
only  by  the  priests  themselves.  "The  IT  is 
the  stranger  relatively  ;  accordingly  those  who 
are  not  Israelites,  not  Levites,  not  relatives; 
here,  those  who  are  not  priests.  He  might  not 
eat  of  the  holy  food  of  the  offerings,  however 
near  he  might  stand  to  the  priest  as  a  neighbor, 
or  a  day  laborer;  but  on  the  other  hand,  the 
purchased  slave,  since  he  had  become  by  cir- 
cumcision an  Israelite  and  one  of  the  household 
of  the  priest,  might  certainly  eat  of  it,  together 
with  those  born  in  the  priest's  house.  And  here 
again  the  house  appears  in  its  full  theocratic  signifi- 
cance. (Comp.  Com.  on  Matt.,  p.  146.)  It  re- 
sults from  this,  that  the  married  daughter  of 
a  priest  is  excluded;  she  belonged  to  another 
house  (if  it  were  a  priestly  house,  she  might  of 
course  eat  there  with  them).     Her  right  revives 


166 


LEVITICUS. 


again,  however,  if  she  comes  back  to  her  father's 
bouse  as  a  childless  widow  or  divorced  ;  but  if 
she  had  children,  she  formed  with  the  children 
another  house.  If  one  who  had  no  right  ate  of 
the  holy  things  by  mistake,  he  must  make  resti- 
tution to  the  priest  for  what  he  had  eaten,  and 
add  a  fifth  part  thereto.  "  The  verse  refers  only 
to  something  unimportant,  for  in  the  case  of 
greater  things  he  was  commanded,  moreover,  to 
offer  a  trespass  offering  (eh.  v.  15)."  Knobel. 
The  difference  is  in  this,  that  here  the  subject  is 
the  transgression  of  eating  the  priestly  portion 
of  the  heave  offering ;  there,  of  heedless  injury 
done  to  the  sanctuary  in  regard  to  the  portion 
hallowed  to  Jehovah. :'  [It  seems  more  proba- 
ble that  the  case  here  referred  to  is  exactly 
included  under  that  in  v.  15,  16,  and  that  the 
trespass  offering  is  not  expressly  mentioned  here 
because  it  is  only  necessary  to  show  that  this 
case  comes  under  the  category  of  those  for  which 
the  trespass  offering  was  required.  Calvin  well 
observes  that  this  prohibition  was  necessary  to 
prevent  the  "holy  things  being  regarded  as 
common  food." — F.  G.]  "  Here  too  the  law  is 
led  back  to  I  the  LORD  do  sanctify  them. 
The  history  of  David  (1  Sam.  xxi.)  and  the  New 
Testament  explanation  of  it  (Matt.  xii.  3)  show 
that  necessity  provided  exceptions  to  this  rule. 
But  the  rule  rests  upon  the  truth  that  religion 
must  be  kept  holy,  in  the  strongest  sense,  even 
in  its  sacrifices,  otherwise  guilt  will  accumulate 
upon  the  people  who  profess  the  religion  (ver. 
16).  When  deceit  is  practised  against  Jehovah 
in  any  way,  e.g.  by  feigned  fasts,  by  asceticism, 
joined  with  secret  sins,  by  fanatic  faith  joined 
with  a  life  of  plunder,  the  manliness  itself  of 
the  natural  man  is  buried  more  and  more,  and 
the  intercourse  of  the  people  loses  more  and  more 
of  its  saving  salt  of  moral  truth — not  to  speak 
of  the  refiuing  fire  of  the  spirit  of  the  new  birth. 
— When  they  eat  their  holy  things.— That 
which  as  holy  things  belonged  to  them  no  long- 
er." Lange.  On  the  meaning  of  the  last  clause 
see  Textual  Note  10.  The  provision  in  regard 
to  the  purchased  servant  in  ver.  11  is  of  impor- 
tance as  showing  how  completely  such  servants 
became  identified  with  the  house  of  their  mas- 
ters. The  command  was  given  only  about  a 
year  after  the  Exodus  when  the  tribes  of  Israel 
doubtless  included  a  large  number  of  the  cir- 
cumcised descendants  of  the  servants  of  the 
patriarchs ;  but  there  can  be  no  stronger  iden- 
tification than  is  here  given  in  allowing  the  pur- 
chased servants  of  the  priests  from  whatever 
nation,  in  contradistinction  to  a  servant  hired 
from  any  other  family  in  Israel,  to  eat  of  the 
priestly  portion  of  the  holy  things. 

Vers.  17-25.  Moses  is  directed  to  convey  this 
communication  unto  all  the  children  of 
Israel,  because  it  was  important  to  have  them 
all  entirely  familiar  with  the  conditions  neces- 
sary to  an  acceptable  victim.  They  were  to 
know  all  the  laws ;  but  their  attention  would 
naturally  be  more  fixed  upon  those  which  were 
immediately  addressed  to  them.  The  law  in 
regard  to  the  victims  necessarily  applies  to  all 
cases,  whether  they  were  offered  by  persons  of 
the  house  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers 
(ver.  18),  because  it  prescribes  what  was  re- 
quired in  the  victim  itself  in  order  to  its  accept- 


ance. The  burnt  offering  is  first  treated  of 
(vers.  18-20),  and  then  the  peace  offering.  Vow 
and  free-will  offerings  might  be  made  of  either 
kind  of  sacrifice  ;  but  the  regulations  concern- 
ing the  victim  differed.  If  it  was  a  burnt  offer- 
ing, it  must  be  a  male,  as  well  as  without 
blemish,  according  to  the  law  of  the  burnt 
offering  in  i.  3,  10;  if  it  was  a  peace  offering, 
there  was  no  law  concerning  the  sex  of  the  vic- 
tim ;  but  it  was  still  required  (ver.  21  i  there 
shall  be  no  blemish  therein.  The  rigidness 
of  the  law  was,  however,  somewhat  relaxed  in 
case  of  the  free-will  offering  (ver.  23),  so  that 
for  this  purpose  a  victim  was  allowed  to  have 
some  thing  superfluous  or  lacking  in  his 
parts.  For  the  distinction  between  the  vow 
and  the  free-will  offering,  see  Com.  on  vii.  15. 
The  other  kind  of  peace  offering,  the  thank 
offering,  is  not  mentioned  here;  being  the  high- 
est of  all,  it  of  course  required  the  perfect  vic- 
tim. Among  the  Gentiles  also  a  sense  of  natural 
fitness  generally  required  that  the  victim  should 
be  integrum  and  Tekeioc.  See  abundant  references 
in  Rosenmiiller  and  Knobel  here,  in  Outram  L. 
I.  c.  9,  and  Bochart  Hieroz.  I.  L.  II.  c.  46.  Ver. 
21  absolutely  prohibits  the  offering  in  sacrifice 
of  any  castrated  animals.  See  Textual  Note. 
Lange;  "The  minute,  precise  definition  of  this 
defect  requires  the  perfect  fitness  for  breeding 
in  the  male  animals,  without  which  it  lost  in  a 
great  degree  its  signification  of  a  worthy  resig- 
nation." In  ver.  25  the  priests  are  forbidden 
to  accept  even  from  a  stranger's  hand  victims 
marked  with  any  of  the  defects  that  have  been 
enumerated,  because  their  corruption  is  in 
them,  i.  e.  because  these  defects  render  them 
unfit  for  sacrifice.  The  bread  of  your  God 
"must  be  derived  from  a  perfect  victim  to  rep- 
resent that  which  is  acceptable  to  God,  which 
in  moral  things  is  perfect  righteousness."  Mur- 
phy. 

Vers.  26-33.  The  final  communication  made 
to  Moses  alone.  Lange:  "Even  in  the  case  of 
sacrificial  animals  without  blemish,  there  yet 
appear  particular  conditions  of  accept ableness 
for  the  offerers.  First,  the  victim  must  be  eight 
days  old;  it  must  be  kept  seven  days  under 
the  dam  to  enjoy  the  full  pleasure  of  existence." 
See  the  same  law  in  Ex.  xxii.  30  in  regard  to 
firstlings.  "  The  reason  for  this  was,  that  the 
young  animal  had  not  attained  to  a  mature  and 
self-sustained  life  during  the  first  week  of  its 
existence."  Keil.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  age 
at  which  the  animal  became  admissible  for  sac- 
rifice is  the  same  as  that  at  which  man  was 
received  into  covenant  relation  by  circumcision. 
At  this  age,  too,  the  animal  first  began  to  be 
eatable,  and  this  fact  doubtless  had  its  signifi- 
cance in  the  laws  for  the  symbolical  food  of 
Jehovah.  Similar  restrictions  of  age  were  in 
use  among  the  Romans,  Pliny  Nat.  Hist.  viii.  77. 
The  prohibition  in  ver.  28  of  killing  both  dam 
and  offspring  on  the  same  day  is  analogous  to 
the  thrice  repeated  precept:  "Thou  shalt  not 
seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk"  (Ex.  xxiii. 
19;  xxxiv.  26;  Deut.  xiv.  21),  and  rests  upon 
the  same  principle  as  the  prohibition  to  take 
from  a  bird's  nest  the  mother  together  with  the 
young  (Deut.  xxii.  6,  7).  All  these  precepts 
were  of  an  educational  character  and  imposed 


CHAP.  XXII.  1-33. 


167 


upon  the  Israelites  the  duty  of  keeping  sacred,  j 
even  among  the  lower  animals,  the  relation  | 
which  God  has  established  between  parent  and 
offspring.  The  law  could  not  have  been  for  the 
sake  of  the  brute,  but  was  altogether  for  man's 
sake  ;  he  must  not  allow  himself  to  violate  the 
finer  susceptibilities  implanted  in  his  nature, 
even  when  mere  utilitarian  reasoning  could  see 
no  use  in  the  command.  The  Targ.  Jon.  pre- 
faces the  command  with  the  words:  "As  our 
Father  is  merciful  in  heaven,  so  be  ye  merciful 
on  earth."  The  connection  here  applies  the 
precept  especially  to  killing  for  sacrifice ;  but  it 
is  noticeable  that  the  word  used  is  the  more 
general  OUU,  as  if  the  command  was  meant  to 
apply  to  all  killing  whatever.  In  ver.  30  the 
law  for  eating  the  thank  offering  on  the  same 
day  on  which  it  is  presented  is  repeated  from 
vii.  15.  Such  repetitions,  if  not  of  necessity, 
are  yet  at  least  highly  desirable  in  a  lengthened 
code  of  laws.  The  conclusion,  vers.  31-33,  is 
like  that  of  chapters  xviii.  and  six.,  and  rests 
upon  the  fact  that  He  who  gives  the  commands 
is  Jehovah — Jehovah  who  sanctifies  them,  and 
who  ha3  brought  them  up  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt.  Lange:  "I  am  Jehovah  is  said 
again  to  seal  this  command,  and  the  following 
explanation  shows  plainly  the  educational  view: 
that  Jehovah  seeks  to  bring  them  up  to  be  a 
holy  people  of  God  by  means  of  these  fixed 
directions.  The  educational  idea  is  negative: 
only  certainly  no  kind  of  dishonor,  or  deceit,  or 
faithlessness  is  allowable  iu  matters  of  reli- 
gion." 

DOCTRINAL   AND    ETHICAL. 

I.  "The  symbolical  and  definite  thought  of 
the  whole  chapter  has  the  highest  meaning  for 
every  form  of  religion,  but  particularly  for  the 
Christian  Church.  It  seeks  a  faultless,  normal 
priesthood,  a  priesthood  which  does  not  darken, 
but  glorifies  religion,  the  Bervice  of  God.  When 
we  think  of  the  sad  fact  that  priests  have  often 
altogether,  or  in  a  great  degree,  corrupted  their 
religious  community,  or  are  now  corrupting  it, 
that  so  many  spiritual  and  hierarchical  cripples 
of  every  kind  darken  and  disfigure  so  many 
congregations,  the  contents  of  our  section  will 
give  us  a  strong  witness  against  a  laxity  and 
untruth  which  is  guilty  especially  of  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  religious  life.  The  church  training 
was  to  be  before  all  things  self-training,  the 
ladder  of  the  churchly  life.  How  many  reflec- 
tions in  regard  to  the  choice  of  the  theological 
profession,  the  tests,  the  ordinations,  and  the 
ecclesiastical  visitations  belong  to  this  chapter. 
Also  the  family  circumstances  of  spiritual  per- 
sons are  here  estimated  according  to  their  sig- 
nificance." Lange. 

II.  The  relation  of  the  priests  to  the  people  is 
here  again  distinctly  brought  out.  They  were 
tinder  precisely  the  same  laws  as  others,  became 
unclean  from  the  same  causes,  and  were  to  be 
purified  in  the  same  way ;  in  short,  they  were 
fully  citizens  of  the  commonwealth  of  Israel. 


But  inasmuch  as  they  had  also  special  duties 
toward  God,  they  were  incapacitated  for  their 
performance  by  this  uncleanness. 

III.  The  identification  of  the  household  with 
its  head,  always  strongly  marked  in  the  Hebrew 
polity,  appears  in  the  case  of  the  priest  with 
especial  clearness.  The  family  is  the  unit  of 
the  Hebrew  commonwealth  and  the  basis  of  the 
Mosaic  legislation.  On  this  see  Maine's  Ancient 
Law. 

IV.  The  law  of  the  conditions  of  the  accepta- 
ble victim  was  precisely  the  same  for  the  Israel- 
ite and  the  stranger.  The  law  thus  intimates 
not  obscurely  that  in  their  approach  to  God  all 
men  stand  on  precisely  the  same  footing. 
"  There  is  no  distinction  of  persons." 

HOMILETICAL   AND    PRACTICAL. 

Lange:  "Chap.  xxii.  is  concerned  with  the 
pure  conduct  of  the  priests  face  to  face  with  the 
sacrifice  of  the  congregation ;  observances  of 
cleanness  of  the  most  varied  kind,  and  especially 
of  sacrifices  according  to  their  spiritual  mean- 
ing." 

As  symbolical  cleanness  was  required  of  those 
who  partook  of  the  sacrifices  which  typified  the 
death  of  Christ,  so  is  spiritual  cleanness  neces- 
sary in  those  who  feed  upon  the  memorial  of 
the  same.  See  1  Cor.  xi.  28,  etc.  Wordsworth. 
The  whole  house  of  the  priest  was  sanctified 
through  him  to  partake  of  the  holy  things;  so 
is  the  whole  house  of  the  Great  High  Priest 
sanctified  through  Him,  even  His  body,  the 
blesseU  company  of  all  faithful  people. 

But  to  be  partakers  of  the  table  of  this  Great 
High  Priest  men  must  not  be  merely  sojourners 
in  His  house,  or  serving  Him  as  hired  servants 
for  gain,  but  truly  identified  with  Him,  and 
forming  an  actual  part  of  His  household.  Words- 
worth. 

Again  and  again  the  law  insists  that  the  vic- 
tim tor  the  acceptable  sacrifice  must  be  without 
blemish.  Whatever  is  offered  to  God  must  be 
of  the  best;  especially  must  the  offering  of  the 
heart  be  perfect  and  complete.  Christ  Himself 
is  described  as  having  offered  Himself  "  without 
spot,"  and  the  Church  which  lie  presents  unto 
Himself  must  "be  holy  and  without  blemish." 
Eph.  v.  27. 

By  forbidding  the  Israelites  to  kill  on  the 
same  day  the  dam  and  its  offspring  God  taught 
them,  and  through  them  the  church  in  all  ages, 
to  be  merciful ;  not  only  merciful  to  those  who 
can  understand  and  appreciate  it,  but  to  exer- 
cise this  virtue  for  its  own  sake — to  be  merciful 
always  and  everywhere,  even  as  our  Father  in 
heaven  is  merciful. 

Calvin  draws  from  the  often  repeated  and 
here  extended  precept  that  the  sacrifice  must  be 
perfect  and  without  blemish,  this  lesson:  that 
whatever  we  offer  to  God  must  be  whole-hearted 
and  true.  We  cannot  serve  God  and  mammon. 
He  applies  this  to  prayers  in  which  the  heart  is 
not  engaged,  and  a  multitude  of  other  things  in 
which  man  may  undertake  to  offer  an  imperfect 
and  divided,  and  therefore  unacceptable  service. 


168 


LEVITICUS. 


PART  THIRD. 

Sanctification    of   the    Feasts. 

"Keeping  holy  the  theocratic  times  and  places,  the  feasts  and  their  culttis,  the  most  holy  name 
of  the  covenant  God  and  His  holy  land." — Lange. 

Chaps.  XXIII.— XXV. 

FIRST   SECTION. 
Of  the  Sabbaths  and  Annual  Feasts. 

"  The  Holy  Seasons,  Laws  of  the  Feasts.  Sabbath,  Easter,  Pentecost,  the  Seventh  Neiv-Moon  or  Sabbath 
of  the  Year,  the  Day  of  Atonement  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles." — Lange. 

Chap.  XXIII.  1-44. 


PRELIMINARY  NOTE. 


The  following,  under  Lange' s  Exegetical,  may 
properly  be  placed  here.  "  The  foundation  of 
these  developed  ordinances  for  the  feasts  has 
already  presented  itself  in  Ex.  xx.  8-11  and  xxxi. 
14  "  [add  Ex.  xxiii.  14-19  ;  xxxiv.  21-26,  and  in 
regard  to  the  Passover,  the  full  account  of  its 
institution,  Ex.  xii.  3-27,  43-50,— F.  G.]  ;  "the 
section,  Num.  xxviii.  xxix.,  contains  more  spe- 
cific directions  about  the  sacrifices  which  were 
to  be  offered  on  the  feast  days."  [The  three 
great  festivals  are  also  described  in  Deut.  xvi.  1- 
17,  and  the  reading  of  the  law  required  at  the 
feast  of  tabernacles  in  the  Sabbatical  year,  Deut. 
xxxi.  10-13. — F.  G.].  "Here  the  treatment  is 
of  the  organic  appearance  of  the  whole  festivity 
of  Israel  in  the  unity  of  its  collective  holy  feasts, 
with  the  ordinance  of  the  festal  cultus  ("  Feast- 
calendar,"  Knobel  says,  which  is  set  aside  by 
Keil) ;  in  the  Book  of  Numbers  the  sacrifices  are 
plainly  specified  as  the  requirements  of  the  the- 
ocratic state,  an  indication  that  they  were  not 
the  principal  things  in  the  ideas  of  the  cultus. 

"  Upon  this  important  section  the  article  Feste 
in  Winer  and  others,  is  to  be  compared,  as  well 
as  the  rich  literature  in  Knobel,  p.  541,  to  which 
add  Kranokl,  commentatio  de  anno  Hebrseorum  Ju- 
bilseo.  Gottingae,  Dietrich,  1838."  [See  also 
Philo  TiSju  T;/f  'E/3d6finc;  Baehr,  Si/mbolik'bk. 
iv.;  Ewald  Alterthiimer;  Kalisch  on  Ex.  xx., 
etc.  ;  Michaelis  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  74-76,  194- 
201  ;  Eochart,  Hkroz.  ;  and  the  appropriate 
articles  in  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  Kitto's  Cyclop, 
of  Bib.  lit.,  Herzog's  Real-Encykl,  and  the  vari- 
ous literature  cited  in  these. — F.  G.]. 

"  The  Hebrew  festivals  are  to  be  regarded  es- 
pecially in  a  two- fold  aspect:  1.  The  holy  sea- 
sons (rflST  ^j/lD).  2.  The  ideas  of  the  differ- 
ent feasts,  the  holy  convocations    ('N^p? 


"The  holy  seasons  are,  according  to  their 
prevalent  fundamental  number,  the  number 
seven,  collectively,  memorial  feasts  of  the  cre- 
ation ;  the  Sabbath,  as  the  seventh  day  ;  Pente- 
cost, as  the  feast  of  the  seventh  week  ;  the  se- 
venth new  moon,  with  its  following  Day  of 
atonement  and  feast  of  tabernacles,  as  the  feast 
of  the  seventh  month ;  the  Sabbatical  year,  as 
the  festival  of  the  seven  Sabbath  years  ;  and  the 
Praise  year  or  year  of  Jubilee  ;  the  50th  year, 
as  the  festival  of  the  completed  seven,  the  seven 
times  seven,  the  prophetic  festival  of  the  new 
eternal  festal  season,   (ch.  xxv.). 

"  Even  through  the  single  feasts  the  number 
seven  runs  again :  seven  days  of  unleavened 
bread,  seven  days  in  tabernacles,  and  no  less  in- 
deed is  it  reflected  in  the  sevenfold  number  of 
the  festal  sacrifices. 

"  The  datum,  however,  from  which  the  whole 
construction  of  the  festal  season  proceeds,  on 
which  the  whole  building  rests,  is  the  datum  of 
the  typical  deliverance  of  Israel  (ver.  15).  The 
line  of  feasts  culminates  indeed  in  a  festival 
[Tabernacles,  the  last  feast  of  the  year]  which 
plainly,  as  a  symbol  of  the  completed  deliverance 
stands  over  against  the  [Passover  as  a  symbol 
of  the]  beginning  of  deliverance."  [From  an- 
other point  of  view  the  Passover  (which,  as  such, 
is  not  mentioned  in  this  chapter)  is  generally 
regarded  as  a  memorial  of  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt  in  its  totality,  and  in  its  typical  signifi- 
cance it  points  forward  to  the  deliverance  from 
sin  through  the  death  of  Christ ;  and  this  again 
has  its  memorial  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  pointing 
forward  to  the  feast  of  the  Lamb  in  heaven.  The 
feast  of  tabernacles,  on  the  other  hand,  was  ex- 
pressly commemorative  of  the  very  temporary 
dwelling  in  booths  (ni3Q  =  huts  made  of 
branches;    the  H3D  is  to  be  distinguished  from 


CHAP.  XXIII.  i-44. 


169 


the  7HX  =  tent,  the  comparatively  permanent 
dwelling  of  the  wilderness)  see  vers.  42,  43,  and 
comp.  Ex.  xii.  37;  xiii.  20.— F.  G.].  *  *  * 

"With  regard  to  the  natural  aspect  of  the  Is- 
raelitish  feasts,  they  are  divided  into  pre-Mosaic, 
Mosaic  (for  that  the  feasts  here  appointed  belong 
to  the  original  Mosaic  legislation  is  admitted 
by  Knobel),  and  later  feasts. 

"  In  the  first  class,  however,  can  only  be  placed 
with  certainty  a  tradition  of  the  Sabbath,  the 
feast  of  the  new  moon,  and  the  harvest  fca=t. 
Upon  the  heathen  festal  seasons  see  the  full 
notes  of  Knobel,  p.  537  sqq. 

"  It  is  however  in  the  highest  degree  note- 
worthy, that  the  Israelitish  ordering  of  the  feasts 
forms  an  unmistakable  contrast  to  the  heathen 
customs.  At  the  time  of  the  Spring  feast  the 
Jewish  Easter  was  kept,  which,  in  connection 
with  its  unleavened  bread,  expresses  a  very  so- 
lemn meaning,  and  is  not  at  all  to  be  judged  by 
the  Christian  Easter.  At  the  time  of  the  autum- 
nal equinox,  however,  when  the  Syrians  (and 
the  Egyptians)  mourned  over  the  death  of  Ado- 
nis the  summer  sun  (like  the  Germanic  Baldur), 
the  Jews  kept  their  most  joyful  feast,  and  freely 
used  the  green  branches  of  summer  before  they 
faded."'  [The  contrast  would  bear  to  bo  even 
more  strongly  expressed,  for  the  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles occurred  more  than  a  month  later  than 
the  autumnal  equinox. — F.  G.].  "It  was  as  if 
they  had  wished  to  celebrate  the  triumph  of  the 
theocratic  spirit  over  the  natural  sadness  for  the 
death  of  beautiful  nature  ;  as  they  certainly  ac- 
cent the  blessing  of  God  and  His  judgment  in 
this  present  life  in  contrast  to  the  dark  Egyp- 
tian necromancy  with  its  prophecy  inspired  i  bis 
side  the  grave,  and  in  contrast  to  the  melancholy 
cultus  of  the  world  of  death  beyond  the  grave. 

"As  to  the  explanation  of  the  apparently  su- 
perfluous days  in  the  seven  day  feasts,  the  eighth 
day  of  unleavened  bread,  and  the  eighth  day  of 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (a  question  which  also 
concerns  the  50th  week  of  the  50th  year  as  a  year 
of  Jubilee),  it  is  certainly  sufficient  to  say,  that 
the  festal  close  of  such  great  days  or  weeks  and 
years  was  to  be  particularly  emphasized.  (Comp. 
Knobel,  p.  549). 

"The  second  Easter  day  as  the  feast  of  the 
first  beginning  of  the  harvest,  the  beginning  of 
the  barley  harvest,  the  feast  of  the  ears  (Abib, 
ear-month),  corresponds  to  the  completed  wheat 
harvest  which  was  celebrated  at  the  feast  of  Ta- 
bernacles (later,  Pentecost  because  fifty  days 
were  reckoned  from  Easter  to  its  celebration), 
and  both  these  harvest  feasts,  of  the  necessities 
of  life  and  of  the  abundance  of  life,  form  a  con- 
trast to  the  harvest  feast  of  joy  [feast  of  Taber- 
nacles] for  ihe  refreshing  and  comforting  gifts 
of  God,  the  fruit,  the  oil  and  the  wine. 

"A  strikingly  isolated  position  is  given  to  the 
feast  of  Pentecost  between  the  other  feasts.  Since 
as  the  chief  harvest  feast  it  seems  to  be  only  a 
natural  feast,  there  was  sought,  and  later,  there 
was  also  found,  in  addition  to  its  natural  aspect, 
a  holy  and  theocratic  aspect  also,  in  that  this 
feast  has  been  described  as  the  feast  of  the  law 
(since  Maimonides.  See  on  the  other  hand  Keil, 
p.  151  ")  [Translation  p.  444,  note].   *  *  * 

"  The  increased  sacrifices  of  the  yearly  feasts 
26 


must  form  a  symbolical  expression  of  the  self- 
surrender  of  the  nation  to  Jehovah,  renewed  by 
the  feasts,  as  it  was  elevated  by  the  thanksgiving 
for  His  gifts, — the  ever  new  gifts  of  creation,  the 
ever  new  gifts  of  atonement  and  of  deliverance. 

"That  which  makes  feasts  to  be  feasts  is  as 
follows  :  1)  They  are  high  seasons  appointed  by 
God,  seasons  of  the  fulfilment  of  Divine  promise 
and  of  human  hope.  2)  Seasons  in  which  the 
union  of  God  and  man,  as  well  as  of  men  with 
one  another,  and  thus  fellowship  with  God  and 
brotherhood  with  man  was  celebrated.  3)  Sea- 
sons in  which  nature,  together  with  man,  ap- 
pears in  the  dress  of  theocratic  sanctification. 
4)  In  which  the  highest  happiness  of  human 
fellowship  arises  from  the  highest  joyfulness  of 
sacrifice  to  Jehovah.  6)  Seasons  which  have  a 
great  sequence,  and  form  a  chain  from  the  feast, 
of  deliverance  in  the  night  of  judgment  and  of 
fear  (Passover)  to  the  feast  of  holy  freedom  and 
joy  (Tabernacles)."  Lange. 

In  regard  to  the  times  of  the  festivals,  it  is  to 
be  remembered  that  God  in  His  dealings  with 
man  always  shows  a  tender  regard  for  the  na- 
ture with  which  He  has  constituted  man.  The 
Hebrew  festivals  were  therefore  so  arranged  as 
to  combine  the  most  important  religious  memo- 
rials and  types  with  the  occasions  of  national 
and  social  need.  The  Passover  was  the  greatest 
of  all  the  annual  festivals  of  the  Hebrews,  and 
was  the  only  one  resting  upon  a  distinct  histo- 
rical and  miraculous  event,  and  the  only  one, 
too,  the  neglect  of  which  was  accompanied  with 
the  penalty  of  excision  (Num.  ix.  13).  The  ob- 
ligation to  observe  it  was  so  urgent  upon  every 
adult  circumcised  Israelite,  that  alone  of  all  the 
feasts  it  had  attached  to  it  a  second  observance 
at  the  same  time  in  the  following  month  for  those 
who  were  prevented  from  keeping  it  by  absence 
on  a  journey,  or  by  defilement  from  contact  with 
a  dead  body — the  only  causes  winch  interfered 
with  t lie  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb.  Histori- 
cally, it  was  far  more  generally  observed  than 
either  of  the  other  festivals.  Attached  to  this, 
and  often  included  in  the  general  name  of  Pa-^- 
over,  was  the  week  of  unleavened  bread  ;  but 
the  strictness  of  the  command  for  the  observance 
of  the  Passover  itself  did  not  apply  to  this.  See 
Deut.  xvi.  7.  The  Passover  was  celebrated  iu 
the  month  Abib  or  Nisan  ;  and  this  mouth,  as  tho 
month  of  the  great  national  deliverance  from 
Egypt,  became  the  first  of  the  ecclesiastical  year. 
Just  at  this  time  occurred  the  beginning  of  the 
barley  harvest,  and  the  festival  for  this  was  ac- 
cordingly so  associated  with  the  Passover,  that  a 
sheaf  of  the  first-fruits  was  to  be  waved  before 
the  Lord  on  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath.  The 
time  of  the  feast  of  weeks,  or  Pentecost,  was  de- 
termined by  the  Passover,  from  which  it.  was 
distant  just  fifty-two  days,  as  we  still  reckon  from 
Good-Friday  to  \Yhitsunday ;  for  seven  weeks 
complete,  or  forty- nine  days  were  reckoned  from 
"the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath,"  or  the  second 
day  after  the  eating  of  the  Paschal  lamb  itself, 
making  fifty-one  days,  and  then  the  feast  was  to 
be  held  on  the  following  day.  The  symbolism 
of  the  sevens  is  therefore  to  be  sought  rather  in 
the  means  of  computing  the  time  than  in  the  re- 
lation of  the  festivals  to  one  another.  Pentecost 
occurred  at  the  close  of  the  grain  harvest,  and 


170 


LEVITICUS. 


was  celebrated  as  a  thanksgiving,  with  especial 
liberality  to  the  poor  and  needy  in  remembrance 
that  the  Israelites  themselves  had  been  bondmen 
in  Egypt.  (Deut.  xvi.  9-12).  This  feast  con- 
tinued but  a  single  day,  and  its  distinguishing 
rite  was  the  waving  before  the  Lord  of  two  lea- 
vened  loaves  prepared  from  the  first  fruits  of  the 
wheat. 

With  the  coming  in  of  the  seventh  month  the 
civil  year  began.  Of  the  existence  of  this  year 
as  distinguished  from  the  ecclesiastical  year, 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt.  It  has  indeed 
been  called  in  question ;  "but  the  form  of  ex- 
pression in  Ex.  xii.  2,  the  commencement  of  the 
Sabbatical  and  Jubilee  years  in  the  month 
Ethanim,  or  Tisri,  the  tradition  of  both  the  rab- 
binical and  Alexandrian  Jews,  and  the  fact  that 
the  new  moon  festival  of  Tisri  is  the  only  one — 
not  excepting  that  of  Nisan — which  is  distin- 
guished by  peculiar  observance,  seem  to  bear 
sufficient  testimony  to  a  more  ancient  computa- 
tion of  time  than  that  instituted  by  Moses  in 
connection  with  the  Passover.  Another  argu- 
ment is  furnished  by  Ex.  xxiii.  16."  Clark. 
Accordingly,  as  generally  in  all  times  and  among 
all  nations,  the  New  Year  was  ushered  in  by  a 
special  observance.  Among  the  Hebrews  this 
took  the  form  of  "  the  Feast  of  Trumpets."  This 
was  marked  by  "  an  holy  convocation  ;"  but  at- 
tendance upon  it  was  not  obligatory.  On  the 
tenth  day  of  the  same  month  occurred  the  solemn 
fast  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  already  treated  in 
ch.  xvi.  Both  these  continued  but  a  single  day. 
On  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  same  month  (which 
was  thus  far  more  marked  by  religious  solemni- 
ties than  any  other),  began  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, continuing  for  seven  days  with  "an  holy 
convocation"  following  on  the  eighth  day.  The 
attendance  obligatory  at  this  would  naturally 
have  led  to  a  large  presence  of  the  people  on 
the  Day  of  Atonement,  only  five  days  before. 
It  was  the  great  harvest  festival  at  the  close  of 
the  agricultural  season,  corresponding  to  our 
Thanksgiving  day,  and  was  very  joyfully  cele- 
brated. It  was  also  connected  with  the  theo- 
cratic system  hy  the  injunction  to  dwell  in 
booths  in  memory  of  the  Exodus  from  Egypt. 

With  all  these,  and  pervading  them,  was  the 
weekly  Sabbath,  a  remembrancer  in  its  recur- 
rence of  God's  rest  from  the  work  of  creation 
(Ex.  xx.  11),  and  in  its  determination  to  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  of  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt  (Deut.  v.  15). 

In  regard  to  the  detail  of  these  several  festi- 
vals, see  the  Exegetical. 

The  Jews  were  prohibited  by  the  law  from  all 
work  only  on  the  fifty-two  weekly  Sabbaths  and 
on  tlie  Day  of  Atonement ;  they  were  also  pro- 
hibited from  all  servile  work  on  the  days  of  holy 
convocation,  viz.  two  each  in  connection  with 
the  I'assover  and  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  one 
at  the  Feast  of  Pentecost,  and  one  at  the  New 
Moon  of  Tisri,  the  seventh  month.  There  is  no 
prescription  in  the  law  in  regard  to  cessation 
of  work  on  the  other  New  Moons;  but.  from 
Amos  viii.  5  they  appear  to  have  been,  at  least 
in  later  limes,  observed  as  Sabbaths.  These 
would  make  in  all  seventy  days,  which  would  be 
reduced  somewhat  by  the  occurrence  of  some  of 


the  other  days,  and  especially  of  the  festival 
Sabbaths,  one  year  with  another,  upon  the 
weekly  Sabbath  ;  but  on  several  of  these  days 
the  prohibition  extended  only  to  servile  work, 
and  the  feasts  were  probably  largely  used  like 
European  fairs,  for  purposes  of  trade.  See  a 
slightly  different  computation  in  Michaelis, 
Laws,  Art.  201. 

The  three  greater  festivals,  Passover,  Pente- 
cost and  Tabernacles,  were  required  to  be  ob- 
served by  the  assembling  of  the  whole  adult 
male  population  at  the  place  of  the  sanctuary. 
This  was  doubtless  fully  carried  out  during  the 
life  in  the  wilderness,  but  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  ever  completely  observed  in  subse- 
quent history.  All  these  festivals  were,  how- 
ever, attended  by  large  numbers,  and  the  de- 
vouter  part  of  the  people  went  up  co  the  sanctu- 
ary at  least  once  in  the  year  (1  Sam.  i.  3,  21; 
Luke  ii.  41,  etc.),  which  appears  to  have  been 
most  commonly  at  the  Passover.  The  women 
were  not  obliged,  but  were  allowed  to  attend, 
and  frequently  did  so,  as  well  as  partake  of  the 
Paschal  lamb. 

Besides  these  annual  feasts,  there  were  the 
Sabbatical  years,  when  the  land  was  required  to 
lie  fallow,  and  all  fruits  were  common  property. 
This  command  could  hardly  have  been  complied 
with  at  all  until  after  the  return  from  the  cap- 
tivity (see  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21),  and  the  exist- 
ence of  such  an  unobserved  law  is  a  strong 
proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Mosaic  legisla- 
tion. There  was  also  the  Year  of  Jubilee,  the 
fiftieth  year,  which  as  it  affected  the  tenure  of 
land  that  had  been  sold,  is  likely  to  have  been 
more  continuously  observed.  It  certainly  was 
recognized  in  the  days  of  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxii. 
6-15).  On  the  question  whether  it  had  conti- 
nued to  be  observed  in  the  intervening  time,  see 
Maimonides  and  Ewald  in  the  affirmative,  Mi- 
chaelis (Laws,  Art.  76)  and  Winer  (sub  voce), 
who  are  in  doubt,  and  Kranold  (p.  80)  and  Hup- 
feld  (pt.  iii.,  p.  20),  who  confidently  deny  that 
the  provisions  for  this  year  ever  came  into  actual 
operation. 

Precisely  what  was  meant  by  an  holy  con- 
vocation we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining, 
except  from  the  word  itself.  Doubtless  in  the 
wilderness  life  it  would  have  meant  a  general 
assembling  of  the  people  for  the  purposes  of  the 
day,  and  the  same  sense  may  be  held  to  apply 
to  the  three  great  festivals  when  all  males  were 
required  to  appear  at  the  place  of  the  sanctuary, 
but  this  cannot  be  true,  after  the  settlement  in 
Canaan,  of  the  weekly  Sabbath  and  of  the  Day 
of  Atonement.  Probably  there  were  on  these 
days  gatherings  for  religious  edification  accom- 
panied with  rest  from  work  in  the  various  towns 
ami  villages  throughout  the  land,  just  as  there 
were  in  the  Synagogues  after  the  return  from 
the  Captivity.  There  were  also  probably  such 
gatherings  at  the  time  of  the  Convocations  of  the 
greater  festivals  of  those  who  did  not  go  up  to 
tue  Sanctuary. 

Besides  the  weekly  Sabbaths,  there  were  in 
all  seven  Convocations  in  the  year:  the  first  and 
last  days  of  the  feasts  of  unleavened  bread,  and 
of  Tabernacles,  the  days  of  Pentecost  and  of 
Atonement,  and  the  Feast  of  Trumpets. 


CHAP.  XXIII.  1-44.  171 


Chapter  XXIII.  1-44. 

1, 2  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
and  say  unto  them,  Concerning  the  feasts  of  the  Lord,  which  ye  shall  proclaim  to 
be  holy  convocations,  even  these  are  my  feasts  [unto  them,  The  appointed  times  of 
the  Lord  which  ye  shall  proclaim  as  holy  convocations,  these  are  my  appointed 
times1]. 

3  Six  days  shall  work  be  done:  but  the  seventh  day  r'^the  sabbath  of  rest,2  an  holy 
convocation;  ye  shall  do  no  work  therein:  it  is  the  sabbath  of  the  Lord  in  all 
your  dwellings. 

4  These3  are  the  feasts  of  the  Lord,  even  [These  appointed  times'  of  the  Lord  are] 
holy  convocations,  which  ye  shall  proclaim  in  their  seasons  [appointed  times1]. 

5,  6  In  the  fourteenth  day'  of  the  first  month  at  even  is  the  Lord's  passover.  And 
on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  same  month  is  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread   unto  the 

7  Lord  :  seven  days  ye  must  eat  unleavened  bread.     In  the  first  day  ye  shall  have 

8  an  holy  convocation :  ye  shall  do  no  servile5  work  therein.  But  ye  shall  offer  an 
offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  seven  days :  in  the  seventh  day  is  an  holy  con- 
vocation :  ye  shall  do  no  servile  work  therein. 

'  9, 10  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
and  say  unto  them,  "When  ye  be  come  into  the  land  which  I  give  unto  you,  and 
shall  reap  the  harvest  thereof,  then  ye  shall  bring  a  sheaf6  of  the  firstfruita  of  your 

11  harvest  unto  the  priest:  and  he  shall  wave  the  sheaf  before  the  Lord,  to  be  ac- 

12  cepted  for  you  :  on  the  morrow  after  the  sabbath  the  priest  shall  wave  it.  And  ye 
shall  offer  that  day  when  ye  wave  the  sheaf  an  he  lamb   [a  ram']   without  blemish 

13  of  the  first  year  for  a  burnt  offering  unto  the  Lord.  And  the  meat  offering  [ob- 
lation8] thereof  shall  be  two  tenth  deals  of  fine  flour  mingled  with  oil,  an  offering 
made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  for  a  sweet  savour  :  and  the9  drink  offering  thereof 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 
1  Ver.  2.  The  word  *1}?13  according  to  all  authorities  means  primarily  afixed,  appointed  time  (Gen.  xxi.  2  ;  Jer.  viii.  7, 

etc.)  and  it  is  so  translated  in  ver.  4  in  their  Masons.    Thence  it  came  to  lip  used  fur  the  festivals  occurring  at  Bel 

Besides  these  meanings  the  word  hue  the  divided  signification  of  the  assembly  which  came  togetheral  these 
i  id  then  the  assembly  or  congregation  generally  (whence  the  expression  Tabernacle  of  congregation!,  and  then  also 
the  place  of  the  assembly.  The  derivative  significations  are  here  out  of  the  question.  It  occurs  in  this  chapter  five  times, 
and  is  not  elsewhi  re  used  in  Lev.  except  in  the  phrase  Tabernacle  of  congregation.  With  the  same  exception,  it  is  uni- 
formly translated  tone  it  n  oson  (set  or  appointed)  in  Gen.  and  Ex.,  and  generally  in  Num.  The  translation  four  times  by 
feasts  in  this  chap,  is  therefore  exceptional  and  supported  only  by  a  few  instances  in  Num.  [tisbetter  therefore 
form  the  translation  here  to  the  usage.  There  is  a  difficulty  with  either  translation  in  the  fact  that  n  lioly  Convoca- 
tion was  not  proclaimed  on  the  Day  of  Atonement; — that  is  broadly  applied  to  all,  which  was  strictly  true  of  nearly  all 
the  particulars  mentioned.     Hat  feasts  labors  under  the  further  disadvantage  that  the  Day  of  atonement  was  a  last. 

1  Ver.  3.  The  translation  necessarily  fails  to  convey  the  full  force  of  the  Heh.  pr\3t^  H3l^  a  very  strong  expression 
used  only  of  the  days  and  years  of  rest  appointed  in  the  Mosaic  legislation. 

'  Ver.  4.  The  Heb.  has  nSx,  the  Sam.  prefixes  1.  According  to  Uoubigant  the  former  refers  to  what  has  preceded, 
the  latter  to  what  follows.    In  this  case  the  Sam.  reading  is  preferable. 

*  Ver.  5.  The  missing  QV  is  supplied  in  15  MSS.  and  the  Sam. 

6  Ver.  7.  "  mi^  j"ON  70,  occupation  of  a  work,  signifies  labor  at  some  definite  occupation,  e.  j.,  the  buildingof  the 
tabernacle,  Ex.  xxxv.  24  ;  xxxvi.  1,  3;  hence  occupation  in  connection  with  trade  or  one's  social  calling,  such  as  agricul- 
ture, handicraft,  e(e. ;  whilst  rotwD  is  the  performance  of  any  kind  of  work,  e.  g.,  kindling  fire  lor  cooking  food  (Ex. 

t    t  : 
xxxv.  2,  Ii."  Keil. 

*  Ver.  10.  1QI?.    The  A.  V.  is  probably  rijjrlit  in  translating  here  sheaf,  which  according  to  the  lexicographers  is  the 

primary  meaning  of  the  word.  See  Deut,  xxiv.  19  :  "Ruth  ii.  7.  L5,  etc  Tt  is  bo  translated  by  the  I.XX,  Vnlg.,  and  Lother, 
as  well  us  by  Gesen.,  Ftlrst,  Lee,  and  others.  On  tin-  other  han  :  josephus  I  Lnt,  iii  lo. .'.  >,  and  th-  Uiahiia,  take  it  in  its  de- 
rived  and  I  sense  of  all  Owr,  ri:.,  of  the  floor  from  the  grain,  offered  with  oil  and  frankincense  as  an  oblation. 

Perhaps  in  later  times  the  omer  of  the  flour  was  substituted  for  the  original  sheaf  of  the  grain. 
"  Ver.  12.  '^'22.     See  Textual  Note  6  on  iii.  7.     Here  the  sex  is  indicated. 

8  Ver.  13.  lr^njO-    See  Textual  Note  -  on  ii.  1.    The  pronoun  is  masc.  with  reference  to  the  sex  of  the  sacrifice. 

t    : 

9  Ver.  13.  The  A.  V.  here  and  in  the  previous  clause  substitutes  the  def.  art.  for  the  masc.  pronoun.  The  Ueb.  text 
Ti3DJ  is  pointed  in  accordance  with  the  v'rt  00}  which  is  also  the  Sam.  reading. 


172  LEVITICUS. 


14  shall  be  of  wine,  the  fourth  part  of  an  hin.  And  ye  shall  eat  neither  bread,  nor 
parched  corn  [grain],  nor  green  ears,  until  the  selfsame  day  that  ye  have  brought 
an  offering  unto  your  God :  it  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  throughout  your  genera- 
tions in  all  your  dwellings. 

15  And  ye  shall  count  unto  you  from  the  morrow  after  the  sabbath,  from  the  day 
that  ye  brought  the  sheaf  of  the  wave  offering ;  seven  sabbaths10  shall  be  complete : 

16  even  unto  the  morrow  after  the  seventh  sabbath10  shall  ye  number  fifty  days ;  and 

17  ye  shall  offer  a  new  meat  offering  [oblation8]  unto  the  Lord.  Ye  shall  bring  out 
of  your  habitations  two  wave  loaves11  of  two  tenth  deals  :  they  shall  be  of  fine  flour  ; 

18  they  shall  be  baken  with  leaven;  they  are  the  firstfruits  unto  the  Loed.  And  ye 
shall  offer  with  the  bread  seven  lambs  [rams']  without  blemish  of  the  first  year, 
and  one  young  bullock,  and  two  [full-grown12]  rams :  they  shall  be  for  a  burnt  of- 
fering unto  the  Loed,  with  their  meat  offering  [oblation8],  and  their  drink  offer- 

19  ings,  even  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  sweet  savour  unto  the  Loed.  Then  ye  shall 
sacrifice  one  kid  [buck13]  of  the  goats  for  a  sin  offeriug,  and  two  lambs  [rams']  of 

20  the  first  year  for  a  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings.  And  the  priest  shall  wave  them 
with  the  bread  of  the  firstfruits  for  a  wave  offering  before  the  Loed,  with  the  two 

21  lambs  [rams']  :  they  shall  be  holy  to  the  Loed  for  the  priest.  And  ye  shall  pro- 
claim on  the  selfsame  day,  that  it  may  be  an  holy  convocation  unto  you:  ye  sball 
do  no  servile  work  therein :  it  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  in  all  your  dwellings 
throughout  your  generations. 

22  And  when  ye  reap  the  harvest  of  your  land,  thou  shalt  not  make  clean  riddance 
of  the  corners  of  thy  field  when  thou  reapest,  neither  shalt  thou  gather  any  glean- 
ing of  thy  harvest :  thou  shalt  leave  them  unto  the  poor,  and  to  the  stranger :  I  am 
the  Lord  your  God. 

23,  24  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
saying,  In  the  seventh  month,  in  the  first  day  of  the  month,  shall  ye  have  a  sab- 
bath [a  sabbath  rest14],  a  memorial  of  blowing  of  trumpets,15  an  holy  convocation. 

25  Ye  shall  do  no  servile  work  therein :  but  ye  shall  offer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto 
the  Lord. 

26, 27  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Also  on  the  tenth  day  of  this  seventh 
month  there  shall  be  [only  the  tenth  of  this  seventh  month  is16]  a  day  of  atonement : 
it  shall  be  an  holy  convocation  unto  you ;  and  ye  shall  afflict  your  souls,  and  offer 

28  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord.  And  ye  shall  do  no  work  in  that  same 
day :  for  it  is  a  day  of  atonement,  to  make  an  atonement  for  you  before  the  Lord 

29  your  God.     For  whatsoever  soul  it  be  that  shall  not  be  afflicted  in  that  same  day, 

30  he  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  people.  And  whatsoever  soul  it  be  that  doeth 
any  work  in  that  same  day,  the  same  soul  will  I  destroy  from  among  his  people. 

31  Ye  shall  do  no  manner  of  work :  it  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  throughout  your  ge- 
l's Ver.  15.  Some  critics  (Keil,  Clark,  and  others)  would  render  here  and  in  xxv.  8  seven  weehs,  in  accordance  with  the 

use  of  r\2TJ  in  the  Talmud,  and  of  adpfiarov  in  the  N.  T.    The  word  seems  to  be  used  here,  however,  rather  by  a  figure  of 

T~ 

Bpeech  as  in  xxv.  2,  4,  etc.,  and  the  definite  meaning  of  week  to  be  of  later  origin.    The  rjQ'Dn  on  which  Keil  relies, 

agrees  with  the  main  idea.  . 

11  Ver.  17.  The  Sam.  here  supplies  the  word  rVl  vn  which  is  uniformly  translated  calces  in  the  A.  V.,  and  may  indicate 

the  kind  of  bread  used. 

12  Ver.  18   07'K  indicates  strong  and  full-grown  rams  of  maturer  age  than  the  Q'^'^S  of  the  first  clause.    The  Sam. 

...  T ; 

3  MSS.  and  LXX.  add  "without  blemish." 

«  Ver.  10.  CTjr-Yi'V!'.    See  Textual  Note  =>  on  iv.  23. 

14  Ver.  24.  T^rOK?  here  Btands  by  itself  without  the  ri3$  used  in  ver.  3.    When  thus  used  by  itself  Rosenmuller  says 
I      t-  t- 

"  de  lis  tantnm  feriis  dicitur,  quee  non  in  septimum  hebdomadia  diem,  qui  ri3C,  cessatio  ab  opere  icar'  Z$oxyv  dicitur,  in- 

T- 

cidit."    It  should  therefore  be  rendered  by  another  term,  and  the  one  suggested  by  Clark  is  adopted. 

16  Ver.  24.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Heb.  corresponding  to  the  words  of  trumpets,  which  should  therefore  be  in  italirs. 
Tli-*  Ii'-l'.  reads  simply  ni'liri    li"OT  =  a  memorial  ofajoyful  noise.     7\V^Pi  is  frequently  used  in  connection  with  va- 

t  I       :  ■  t        : 

rioiis  kinds  of  trumpets  and  other  instruments  (Num.  xxxi.  6  ;  Lev.  xxv.  9  ;  Ps.  cl.  5\  denoting  the  clangor  of  those  instru- 
ments, but  it  is  also  quite  as  frequently  used  without  reference  to  an  instrument  of  any  kind  (Num.  xxiii.  21 ;  Job  viii.  -1J; 
xxxiii.  20  ;  Kara  iii.  11,  13,  etc.).  The  silver  trumpets  of  the  temple  were  however  blown  on  all  the  festivals,  including  the 
new  moons  (Num.  x.  10),  and  there  is  no  reason  to  question  the  tradition  that  on  "the  feast  of  trumpets"  horns  or  cornets 
of  some  kind  were  blown  generally  throughout  the  land.  The  LXX.  has  hvihioovvov  aaXwiyyuty,  the  Vulg.  memorials 
clangenlibus  tnbis. 

w  Ver.  2T.  ^K  Is  a  particle  of  limitation,  and  thus  in  this  case  of  emphasis.      It  is  better  to  omit  the  italicised  words 

there  shall  be,  and  translato  according  to  the  usual  construction  of  a  Ileb.  clause  ending  with  X3rt 


CHAP.  XXIII.  1-44. 


173 


32  nerations  in  all  your  dwellings.  It  shall  be  unto  you  a  sabbath  of  rest,'  and  ye  shall 
afflict  your  souls  ;  in  the  ninth  day  of  the  month  at  even,"  from  even  unto  even, 
shall  ye  celebrate  your  sabbath  [your  rest18]. 

33,  3-4  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
saying,  The  fifteenth  day  of  this  seventh  month  shall  be  the  feast  of  tabernacles  for 

35  seven  days  unto  the  Lord.     On  the  first  day  shall  be  an  holy  convocation  :  ye  shall 

36  do  no  servile  work  therein.  Seven  days  ye  shall  offer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto 
the  Lord  :  on  the  eighth  day  shall  be  an  holy  convocation  unto  you ;  and  ye  shall 
offer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  :  it  is  a  solemn  assembly,19  and  ye 
shall  do  no  servile  work  therein. 

37  These  are  the  feasts  [appointed  times1]  of  the  Lord,  which  ye  shall  proclaim  to 
be  holy  convocations,  to  offer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord,  a  burnt  of- 
fering, and  a  meat  offering  [an  oblation8],  a  sacrifice,  and  drink  offerings,  every 

38  thing  upon  his  day:  beside  the  sabbaths  of  the  Lord,  and  beside  your  gifts,  and 
beside  all  your  vows,  and  beside  all  your  freewill  offerings,  which  ye  give  unto  the 
Lord. 

39  Also  [Only16]  in  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  seventh  month,  when  ye  have  gathered 
[at  your  gathering  in20]  in  the  fruit  of  the  land,  ye  shall  keep  a  feast  unto  the  Lord 
seven  days:  on  the  first  day  shall  be  a  sabbath,  and  on  the  eighth   day  shall  be  a 

40  sabbath.  And  ye  shall  take  you  on  the  first  day  the  boughs  [fruit21]  of  goodly 
trees,22  branches  of  palm  trees,  and  the  boughs  of  thick  trees,23  and  willows  of  the 

41  brook ;  and  ye  shall  rejoice  before  the  Lord  your  God  seven  days.  And  ye  shall 
keep  it  a  feast  unto  the  Lord  seven  days  in  the  year.     It  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever 

42  in  your  generations  :  ye  shall  celebrate  it  in  the  seventh  month.     Ye  shall  dwell  in 

43  booths  seven  days  ;  all  that  are  Israelites  born  shall  dwell  in  booths :  that  your 
generations  may  know  that  I  made  the  children  of  Israel  to  dwell  in  booths,  when 
I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt :  I  am  the  Lord  your  God. 

44  And  Moses  declared  unto  the  children  of  Israel  the  feasts  [appointed  times1]  of 
the  Lord. 

"  Ver.  32.  The  word  311*3  —  at  even  is  omitted  in  one  MS.,  LXX.,  and  Vulg. 

.     .■  T 

is  Ver.  32.  The  margin  of  the  A.  V.  is  more  correct  than  the  text.    The  Heb.  is  D3P3ty    VuVfti 

w  Ver.  36.  rni\T  is  ft  w°rd  the  signification  of  which  has  been  much  questioned.    The  translation  of  the  LXX.  efdSicV 

€<ttl,  meaning  the'dose  of  the  festival,  is  defended  by  Fiirst,  and  adopted  by  Patrick  ;  so  also  Theodoret,  referring  not  only 
to  this  l'-ni,  bat  to  the  whole  cycle  of  feasts,  to  reAo?  tCiv  iopruv,  and  so  alsoKeil.  Michaelis,  using  an  Arabic  etymology, 
interprets  it  of  pressing  out  the  grapes.  Tiie  sense  of  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  day  of  restraint  is  paid  u<  be  advocated  l.v  Ikon 
in  a  special  dissertation  (Con.  Ikenii  DisserlaU.  Ludg.  Ritav.  1749)  and  is  adopted  by  Abarbanel  and  other  Jewish  writers. 
The  text  of  the  A.  V.  assembly  is  defended  by  Rosenmullcr  (3d  Ed.),  advocated  by  Gesenius.  and  iB  that  given  by  Onkelos, 
the  Vnig.,  and  Syr.  The  LXX.  also  elsewhere  translates  the  word  iravjiyvpts  (Amos.  v.  2)  and  onii-o6ov  [ Jer.  ix.  2).  The 
word  occurs  but  ten  times,  in  rive  of  which  it  refers  f..  the  last  day  of  one  of  the  great  feasts,  and  iu  one  ether  (Jer.  ix.  2  |1J) 
it  clearly  means  assembly.  Josephos  { Ant.  iii.  10,  t'.i  applies  it  as  a  customary  phrase  to  the  feast  of  Pentecost.  It  is  the 
day  referred  to  in  Jno.  vii.  37  as  "  the  last  day,  that  great  day  of  the  feast." 

20  Ver.  39.  D3DDX3-    It  is  better  to  preserve  the  indefiniteness  of  the  original  which  does  not  determine  whether  the 
harvest  was  already  fully  gathered.    Clark  thinks  that  this  could  rarely  have  been  the  case. 

«i  Ver.  40.  The  Heb.,  as  noted  in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.,  is  /mil,  and  it  is  better  to  retain  the  word  even  ifit  l 
plained  (Keil)  of  "the  shoots  and  branches  ,1  He.  ti.es."     According  to  the  most  ancient  traditions,  however,  it  was  cus- 
tomary at  this  feast  to  carry  in  one  hand  some  fruit,  and  the  word  is  retained  in  all  the  ancient  versions, 

»  Ver.  40.  1171    ¥S,  lit.  ornamental  trees,  a  generic  word  including  the  various  kinds  specified  just  below.    So  the 

XT        •    •' 

Sam.,  LXX.,  Syr.,  and  Vulg.,  the  lexicons,  and  most  interpreters.  Jewish  tradition,  however,  incorporated  into  the  Tar- 
gums  and  Josephus  (Ant.  xiii.  13,  5)  understauds  it  specifically  of  the  Citron. 

z>  Ver.  40.  |i3J>~y>'-    The  rendering  of  the  A.  V.  is  sustained  by  almost  all  authorities,  meaning  treeB  of  various 

kinds  having  thick  foliage.  The  Targums  all  interpret  it  specifically  of  myrtles,  which  cannot  be  right,  as  in  the  account 
of  the  celebration  of  this  feast  iu  Neh.  viii.  15  the  wjrUe  and  the  thick  trees  are  distinguished. 


EXEGETICAL  AND   CRITICAL. 

This  chapter  consists  of  five  Divine  communi- 
cations to  Moses,  beginning  respectively  with 
vers.  1,  9,  23,  26  and  33,  all  of  which,  except 
that  concerning  the  day  of  Atonement,  ver.  26, 
he  is  directed  to  speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel.  The  first  of  these  (1-8)  relates  to 
the  weekly  Sabbath,  the  Passover,  and  the  fol- 
lowing feast  of  unleavened  bread ;  the  second 
(9-22)  to  the  wave  sheaf  in  connection  with  the 


last  feast,  and  the  feast  of  weeks,  or  Pentecost ; 
the  third  (23-25)  to  the  civil  New  Year,  or  the 
New  Moon  of  the  seventh  month  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical year;  the  fourth  (26-32)  to  the  great 
Day  of  Atonement ;  the  last  (33-44)  to  the  feast 
of  tabernacles. 

Ver.  2  forms  the  heading  or  introduction  to 
the  whole  chapter.  This  is  a  full  list  of  all 
those  days  and  years,  all  the  appointed  times 
which  the  Lord  had  marked  out  as  to  be  sepa- 
rated and  distinguished  from  the  ordinary  course 
of  the  daily  life ;  yet  it  does  not  include  the 


174 


LEVITICUS. 


ordinary  new  moons  on  which  special  sacrifices 
were  also  to  be  offered.   Num.  xxviii.  11-16. 

Ver.  3.  First  of  all  comes  the  weekly  Sabbath, 
a  day  to  be  observed  by  a  total  cessation  from 
all  work  and  by  an  holy  invocation.  On 
the  last,  expression  see  the  close  of  the  prelimi- 
nary note.  The  weekly  Sabbath  is  placed  in 
the  same  way  before  the  annual  appointed 
times  in  Ex.  xxiii.  12-17 ;  Num.  xxviii.  9 — 
xxix.  No  reason  is  here  given  for  this  obser- 
vance. It  was  certainly  pre-Mosaic,  and  in  the 
fourth  commandment  is  made  to  rest  upon  the 
example  of  the  Divine  cessation  from  the  works 
of  creation.  But  this  refers  only  to  the  obser- 
vance of  rest  in  a  proportionate  part  of  the 
time — one  day  in  every  Beven,  and  therefore  has 
no  bearing  upon  the  actual  length  of  the  crea- 
tive work.  In  the  repetition  of  the  command- 
ments in  Deut.  v.,  the  observance  of  this  rest  on 
the  particular  day  of  the  week,  Saturday,  is 
grounded  on  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  that 
great  mark  of  the  Divine  favor  and  national 
birth-day  which  enters  more  or  less  into  nearly 
all  the  feasts. 

A  great  part  of  Lange's  Exegetical  under  this 
chapter  has  been  already  given  in  the  prelimi- 
nary note.  All  that  follows  what  is  given  there 
will  be  found  below. 

"1.  The  Sabbath.— The  six  days  of  work 
are  the  foundation  and  the  condition  of  the  rest 
of  the  seventh  day.     The   prohibition  not   only 

of  servile  labor  (iTUJPJ,  but  also  of  the  higher 
and  freer  business  (DDS/p),  forces  the  nobler 
sort  of  men  directly  to  look  in  upon  themselves, 
to  devotion,  and  so  to  celebrate  the  feast.  The 
Sabbath  Sabbathon  (the  Sabbath  feast)  has,  how- 
ever, been  here  already  appointed  for  the  as- 
sembling in  the  Sanctuary,  a  thing  which  was 
possible  in  the  desert  journeys,  and  later  in 
Canaan,  was  fulfilled  by  the  substitution  of  the 
synagogues  (see  Winer,  Synagogen),  and  thus 
was  the  germ  of  all  festivals."  Lange.  On  the 
interval  of  nearly  a  thousand  years  between  the 
desert  journeys  and  the  institution  of  Syna- 
gogues, see  preliminary  note. 

The  weekly  Sabbaths  are  in  a  sense  included 
among  the  appointed  times  of  ver.  2,  but 
yet  are  distinguished  from  them  by  the  fresh 
heading  of  ver.  4  and  by  vers.  37,  38.  They 
were  indeed  appointed  times,  but  appointed 
from  the  creation  of  man,  not  first  prescribed 
by  the  Mosaic  law.  The  expression  at  the  close 
of  the  verse  in  all  your  dwellings  is  inter- 
preted by  the  Jewish  writers  to  mean  everywhere, 
in  or  out  of  the  Holy  Land.  Certainly  it  is  thus 
comprehensive;  but  the  expression  is  more  im- 
portant as  distinguishing  the  convocation  of 
these  days  from  those  of  the  annual  festivals. 
These  were  to  be  celebrated  at  home,  in  each 
town  and  village  and  hamlet,  and  thus  "kept 
alive  the  knowledge  and  piety  of  the  sioiple  yeo- 
man in  all   the  land This  single  verse 

affords  an  interesting  prospect  of  the  unwritten 
history  of  Israel's  rural  piety."   Murphy. 

Vers.  4-8.  Ver.  4  is  simply  the  heading  in 
substance  of  ver.  2  repeated  to  distinguish  the 
annual  from  the  weekly  festival.  Vers.  6-8 
relate  to  the  Passover  and  the  feast  of  unleavened 


bread,  which  are  here,  as  in  Ex.  xii.  and  Num. 
xxviii.  16,  17,  clearly  distinguished  from  each 
other.  The  same  distinction  is  observed  by 
Josephus  (Ant,  III.  10,  5),  but  both  names  came 
to  be  used  interchangeably  as  in  the  New  Test., 
especially  in  St.  John.  Of  all  the  annual  festi- 
vals the  Passover  came  first  in  the  cycle  of  the 
ecclesiastical  year,  first  in  the  great  historic 
event  it  commemorated,  first  in  its  obligation, 
and  first  in  its  spiritual  and  typical  significance. 
The  Paschal  lamb  was  to  be  slain  on  the  14th 
Nisan  "between  the  evenings,"  and  eaten  in  the 
following  evening,  i.  e.  according  to  the  Hebrew 
division  of  the  days,  on  the  beginning  of  the 
15th.  Eut  with  the  16th  began  the  first  day  of 
holy  convocation,  so  that  the  two  feasts  were 
thus  actually  blended  into  one.  Lange:  "2. 
The  feast  of  unleavened  bread.. — With  this 
begin  the  feasts  in  the  more  peculiar  sense, 
which  were  proclaimed,  and  in  Canaan  are  also 
feasts  of  convocation  of  Israel  at  the  sanctu- 
ary (for  the  male  youth  and  men) The 

15th  day  is  particularly  the  feast  of  Mazzoth, 
which  lasts  seven  days,  but  in  such  wise  that 
only  the  first  and  last  day  are  in  the  more  strict 
sense  festival  days  which  exclude  all  business. 
To  these  two  feasts  was  appended  in  a  certain 
sense  as  a  third  the  preliminary  feast  of  the 
harvest.  It  speaks  for  the  antiquity  of  the  text 
that  this  feast  was  postponed  to  the  future. 
Not  until  they  came  into  Palestine  could  Israel 
gather  in  harvests  and  offer  sheaves  of  the  first 
fruits.  The  first  sheaf  cut  from  the  first  field 
produce  is  meant,  viz.  barley  (on  the  barley 
harvest  in  Palestine,  see  Keil,  p.  148)."  [Trans., 
p.  439.  Keil  refers  to  Philo  and  Josephus  for 
the  statement  that  the  sheaf  was  of  barley,  and 
says  this  is  not  expressly  mentioned  because  it 
was  a  matter  of  course.  "In  the  warmer  parts 
of  Palestine  the  barley  ripens  about  the  middle 
of  April,  and  is  reaped  in  April  or  the  beginning 
of  May,  whereas  the  wheat  ripens  two  or  three 
weeks  later  (Seetzen;  Robinson's  Pal.  ii.  263, 
278)."  F.  G.]  "The  sheaf  was  to  be  waved 
before  Jehovah.  Does  this  mean:  hallowed  in- 
deed to  Jehovah,  but  given'  to  the  priest  ?  So 
it  seems  from  ver.  20.  But  according  to  Ex. 
xxix.  24,  27,  that  which  was  waved  was  in  part 
brought  to  the  altar  and  in  part  designated  as 
for  Moses  [t.  e.  for  Aaron  and  his  sous].  So 
the  sanctification  to  Jehovah  was  to  be  the  prin- 
cipal idea  of  the  waving,  but  certainly  with  the 
secondary  idea  that  it  was  only  ideally  offered 
to  Jehovah  for  the  use  of  the  priest.  The  first 
day  of  the  Mazzoth  was  reckoned  as  a  Sabbath, 
and  the  sheaf  of  the  first  fruits  was  presented 
on  the  second  of  the  seven  days.  That  day  was 
distinguished  by  a  festal  sacrifice.  But  the  sac- 
rifice is  small,  for  the  year  is  yet  poor — of  less 
value  than  the  later  sacrifices:  one  lamb  for  the 
burnt  offering,  two  tenths  (of  an  Ephah)  of 
wheat  flour  moistened  with  oil  for  the  oblation, 
to  which  was  added  the  fourth  part  of  an 
hin  for  a  drink  offering.  Under  this  condition 
only  was  Israel  acceptable  in  its  preliminary 
feast  of  the  harvest,  and  the  prohibition  is  a 
very  prominent  thing:  before  Jehovah  has  re- 
ceived His  sheaf  of  the  first  fruits  nothing  of  the 
new  bread  can  be  eaten.  A  law  for  posieriy  ! 
says  the  legislation  in  the  wilderness."     [The 


CHAP.  XXIII.   1-44. 


175 


first  Divine  communication  of  this  chapter  closes 
with  ver.  8.  It  contains  the  command  for  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath,  of  the  Passover,  and 
the  general  direction  for  the  observance  of  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread.  Here  it  ends,  and  a 
new  communication  begins  with  ver.  9,  and  ex- 
tends to  ver.  22  containing  the  commands  for 
the  wave  sheaf,  which  was  a  part  of  the  feast 
of  unleavened  bread,  and  for  the  feast  of  Pente- 
cost. The  reason  for  this  apparent  dislocation 
of  the  logical  arrangement  is  obvious:  what 
was  directed  in  the  first  communication  was  to 
be  immediately  observed  during  the  wilderness 
life,  while  the  wave  sheaf  and  Pentecost,  could 
not  be,  and  were  not  intended  to  be  observed 
until  the  entrance  upon  the  land  of  Canaan. 
There  is  here  therefore  an  incidental,  but  very 
strong  evidence  of  the  date  of  this  legislation. 
At  any  other  time  than  during  the  wilderness- 
life,  all  the  precepts  for  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  would  certainly  have  been  arranged  in 
the  same  paragraph.  Ver.  11.  On  the  mor- 
row after  the  Sabbath. — Various  opinions 
have  been  held  in  regard  to  this  Sabbath.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Boethoseans  (see  Lightfoot  on 
Luke  vi.  1)  the  beginning  of  the  ecclesiastical 
year  was  so  arranged  that  the  Passover  always 
fell  on  the  Sabbath,  and  consequently  "the 
morrow  after  the  Sabhath "  and  the  feast  of 
Pentecost  were  always  observed  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week.  This  opinion  has  been  adopted  by 
several  modern  authorities,  as  Hitzig,  Hupfeld, 
Knobel,  Kurtz  The  two  former  of  these  think 
that  the  sheaf  was  waved  after  the  conclusion 
of  the  feast  on  the  22d  of  the  month  ;  the  two 
latter,  on  the  loth,  the  first  day  of  holy  convo- 
cation. It  has  been  confuted  by  Biihr  and 
Weiseler,  and  is  rejected  by  Keil  and  Clark  on 
the  ground  that  such  an  arrangement  would  in- 
volve a  broken  or  partial  week  almost  invariably 
at  the  close  of  the  year,  which  is  of  course  inad- 
missible. It  may  be  added  further  that  [he  first 
day  and  the  seventh  day  of  the  feast  could  not 
possibly  have  both  fallen  upon  the  weekly  Sab- 
bath, and  that  the  provision  for  both  is  the 
Eame  (vers.  7,  8)  forbidding  only  servile  work. 
Another  opinion  is  that  the  Sabbath  was  that 
weekly  Sabbath  which  must  occur  on  one  of  the 
days  of  the  feast.  This  was  the  view  of  the 
Sadducees  and  of  the  Karaite  Jews,  but  while  it 
rests  upon  no  positive  support,  seems  sufficiently 
refuted  by  the  argument  of  Keil  (note,  p.  440) 
that  "if  the  Sabbath  was  not  fixed,  but  might 
fall  upon  any  day  of  the  seven"  days'  feast  of 
Mazzoth,  and  therefore  as  much  as  five  or  six 
days  after  the  Passover,  the  feast  of  Passover 
itself  would  be  forced  out  of  the  fundamental 
position  which  it  occupied  in  the  series  of  an- 
nual festivals  (comp.  Ranke,  Pentateuch  II.  108)." 
The  better  view  is  that  found  in  the  LXX., 
Philo,  Josephus,  the  Targums,  and  the  Rabbini- 
cal writers  generally,  and  which  seems  most 
iu  accordance  with  the  text  itself,  that  the  Sab- 
bath was  simply  the  festival  Sabbath,  the  loth 
Abib,  on  whatever  day  of  the  week  it  might 
happen  to  fall.  So  Lange  below.  The  sheaf 
of  first  fruits  was  then  waved  on  the  16th.  and 
from  that  day  the  time  was  reckoned  to  the 
t  sasl  of  Pentecost.  "By  offering  the  sheaf  of 
first  fruits  of  the  harvest,  the  Israelites  were  to 


consecrate  their  daily  bread  to  the  Lord  their 
God,  and  practically  to  acknowledge  that  they 
owed  the  blessing  of  the  harvest  to  the  grace  of 
God."  Keil.  The  offerings  of  vers.  12,  13,  were 
especially  connected  with  the  wave  sheaf,  and 
were  additional  to  the  regular  feast  day  sacri- 
fices prescribed  in  Num.  xxviii.  19-24.  The  ob- 
lation was  doubled  (see  Ex.  xxix.  40;  Num.  xv. 
4;  xxviii.  21)  as  was  appropriate  to  a  harvest 
festival ;  but  the  drink  offering  (which  in  Le- 
viticus is  mentioned  only  here  and  in  vers.  18, 
37)  remained  as  usual.  Ver.  14.  Bread  .... 
parched  grain  ....  green  ears  are  the  three 
forms  in  which  grain  was  commonly  eaten,  and 
the  expression  is  equivalent  to  forbidding  its  use 
in  any  form  whatever  before  the  waving  of  the 
sheaf  of  first-fruits. — F.  G.]. 

"  3.  The  Feast  of  Weeks.  .  [Vers.  15-22].  De- 
termination of  the  time  :  From  the  second  day 
of  the  Mazzoth  seven  Sabbaths  were  counted,  i.  e., 
forty-nine  days.  The  following  day,  the  fif- 
tieth, is  the  feast  of  weeks  (njjplff  JH).  The 
leading  thought  is  the  new  oblation  which  was 
brought  to  Jehovah  from  the  completed  grain 
harvest.  It  was  to  be  brought  out  of  all  dwell- 
ings, and  thus  not  out  of  the  regular  templo  re- 
venues: two  wave  loaves  of  two-tenths  (of 
an  Ephah)  of  fine  wheaten  flour.  The  baked 
bread  must  be  leavened,  which  shows  that  leaven 
does  not,  in  and  of  itself,  signify  the  evil  (comp. 
Comm.  on  Matt.  p.  197)  [xi.  33,  Am.  Ed.,  p.  245]. 
This  was  the  first-fruits  of  the  whole  grain  har- 
vest which  must  be  hallowed  to  Jehovah  before 
the  bread  from  the  new  harvest  might  be  eaten." 
[This  is  not  stated  in  the  Text,  and  while  it  was 
undoubtedly  true  in  regard  to  the  wheat,  must 
not  be  understood  to  include  also  the  barley 
which  it  became  lawful  to  use  immediately  after 
the  offering  of  the  wave  sheaf  during  the  feast 
of  unleavened  bread. — F.  G.].  "The  year  has 
now  become  richer,  and  hence  seven  lambs  must 
be  offered  for  a  burnt  offering  besides  a  young 
ox  (bullock)  and  two  rams,  and  with  all  these 
the  proportionate  drink  offerings.  Besides  these 
there  was  a  he-goat  for  the  sin  offering — hardly 
with  reference  to  the  unleavened  bread  (accord- 
ing to  Keil,  p.  151),  but  certainly  with  reference 
to  the  sins  which  were  wont  to  accompany  the 
harvesting."  [The  precise  remark  of  Keil, 
(trans,  p.  443)  is  as  follows  :  "  The  sin  offering 
was  to  excite  the  feeling  and  consciousness  of 
sin  on  the  part  of  the  congregation  of  Israel,  that 
whilst  eating  their  daily  leavened  bread  they 
might  not  serve  the  leaven  of  their  old  nature, 
but  seek  and  implore  from  the  Lord  their  God 
the  forgiveness  and  cleansing  away  of  their  sin." 
It  is  to  be  observed  that  this  sin  offering  was 
neither  that  required  for  a  definite  sin  of  the 
whole  congregation,  a  bullock  (iv.  14),  nor  yet 
that  for  an  individual,  a  she-goat  (i'6.  28),  but 
was  the  same  as  that  required  for  a  prince  («6. 
23).  The  reason  for  it  is  to  be  sought,  not  in 
any  especial  and  definite  sin,  but  in  that  general 
and  continual  sinfulness  which  the  chosen  people 
were  commanded  to  recognize  on  all  occasions 
of  especial  solemnity.— F.  G.].  "  Finally  two 
lambs  as  a  peace  offering,  or  thank  offering, 
closed  the  feast.  These  peace  offerings  were 
waved  with  the  loaves  of  first-fruits,  i.  e.,  were 


176 


LEVITICUS. 


sanctified  to  Jehovah,  and  then  fell  to  the  priest. 
A  principal  direction  for  even  this  day  is  that  it 
was  proclaimed  as  a  convocation  of  the  sanc- 
tuary, and  that  on  it  even  domestic  work  itself 
was  forbidden  as  well  as  servile  labor."  [The 
text  however  (ver.  21)  contains  only  the  prohi- 
bition of  servile  work.  It  is  noticeable  that 
this  Pentecostal  offering  of  two  young  rams  was 
the  only  peace  offering  required  of  the  whole 
congregation  in  the  Mosaic  ritual.  —  F.  G.]. 
"  With  this  memorable  religious  command  is 
connected  the  humane  one,  that  the  reaper  of 
the  harvest  must  let  some  remain  in  the  borders 
of  the  field,  and  that  gleaning  was  forbidden  in 
favor  of  the  poor  (comp.  Ruth).  It  is  plainly 
said  again  with  this  command :  I  am  the  Lord 
your  God."  [This  feast,  was  not  to  be  observed 
until  ye  be  come  into  the  land  which  I  give 
unto  you,  and  Theodoret  (Qu.32  in  Lev.),  says 
that  it  then  "renewed  the  memory  of  the  en- 
trance into  the  land  of  promise."  Since  Maimo- 
nides  (see  Lange  above)  it  has  been  customary 
to  connect  it  with  the  giving  of  the  law.  Nei- 
tiier  of  these  associations,  however,  rest  on  any 
sure  foundation.  In  Ex.  xxxiv.  22  this  festival 
is  more  particularly  described,  as  indeed  is  im- 
plied here,  as  the  first-fruits  of  the  wheat  har- 
vest. The  loaves  differed  from  all  ordinary  ob- 
lations in  being  leavened,  as  an  offering  from  the 
people's  daily  bread  to  the  Lord  who  had  blessed 
the  harvest  (comp.  ii.  11,  12),  but  in  accordance 
with  the  general  law,  they  were  not  to  be  placed 
upon  the  altar.  "  The  injunction  out  of  your 
habitations  is  not  to  be  understood,  as  Calvin 
and  others  suppose  [so  also  Corn,  a  Lapide, 
and  Lange  above],  as  signifying  that  every  house- 
holder was  to  present  two  such  loaves  ;  it  sim- 
ply expresses  the  idea,  that  they  were  to  be 
loaves  made  for,  the  daily  food  of  a  household, 
and  not  prepared  expressly  for  holy  purposes." 
Keil.  A  moment's  reflection  upon  the  immense 
mass  of  bread  that  would  be  required  from  tbe 
GOO.OuO  men  of  Israel,  to  be  eaten  only  by  the 
priests  and  their  families,  is  sufficient  to  show 
that  Keil's  explanation  must  be  right.  The  vic- 
tims to  be  offered,  according  to  vers.  18, 19,  differ 
from  those  prescribed  in  Num.  xxviii.  28-31  for 
the  same  occasion  in  two  particulars:  there  is 
no  mention  there  of  the  peace  offerings  required 
here  (ver.  19),  but  this  is  merely  a  difference  in 
the-  particularity  of  the  command  which  fre- 
quently occurs  ;  and  there  two  young  bullocks 
and  one  ram  are  required,  while  here  it  is  oneol 
the  former  and  two  of  the  latter,  the  offering's  in 
all  other  respects  being  the  same.  On  this  ac- 
count many  commentators  have  supposed  that 
the  offerings  in  Num.  were  simply  a  festival  en- 
largement of  the  daily  burnt  offering,  while  those 
here  commanded  were  additional  sacrifices  ac- 
companying the  special  rites  of  the  festival.  It 
can  hardly,  however,  be  considered  a  rash  con- 
jecture that  in  one  place  or  the  other  the  nu- 
merals may  have  changed  places  in  the  hands  of 
the  scribes.  Josephus  (Ant.  iii.  10,  5)  follows 
the  statement  in  Num.  Vers.  19,  20.  The  sin 
and  peace  offerings  were  to  be  waved.  Accord- 
ing to  Jewish  tradition  this  was  accomplished 
by  leading  the  animals  backwards  and  forwards 
according  to  an  established  custom.  With  the 
waving  of  the  sin  offering  comp.  the  waving  of 


the  leper's  trespass  offering,  xiv.  12.  The  flesh 
of  both  these  offerings,  unlike  the  ordinary  peace 
offerings,  was  to  belong  to  the  priest,  Ver.  21. 
On  the  selfsame  day.  The  feast  of  weeks  is 
distinguished  from  the  two  other  great  festivals 
in  lasting  but  a  single  day;  but  it  is  said  to  have 
been  the  custom  in  later  times  to  give  a  festal 
character  to  the  six  days  following,  and  to  con- 
tinue to  offer  abundant  sacrifices  upon  them. 
The  feast  is  only  described  here  as  an  holy 
convocation,  and  is  called  the  feast  of  harvest 
in  Ex.  xxiii.  16,  the  feast  of  weeks,  of  the  first- 
fruits  of  whrat  harvest,  Ex.  xxxiv.  22  ;  Deut.  xvi. 
10,  day  of  the  first-fruits  Num.  xxviii.  26.  The 
name  Pentecost  belongs  to  a  later  time,  and  ap- 
pears in  the  Apocrypha  (Tobit  ii.  1  ;  2  Mace, 
xii.  32),  and  in  the  N.  Test.  (Acts  ii.  1 ;  xx.  16  ; 
1  Cor.  xvi.  8).  By  Jewish  writers  it  is  fre- 
quently called  rn.X#  (see  Text.  Note  19  on  ver. 
36),  Gr.  'Aaapdi.  As  in  nature  the  ripening  of 
the  later  grain  was  connected  with  that  of  the 
earlier,  so  in  the  law  the  time  of  the  festival  for 
the  one  was  made  dependent  upon  that  of  the 
other;  just  as  when  the  type  was  absorbed  in 
the  Antitype  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
dependent  upon  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  the 
First-fruits  from  the  dead  on  the  morrow  after 
the  Sabbath  of  the  Passover  ;  and  the  commemo- 
ration festival  of  Whitsunday  has  ever  been  ob- 
served by  the  Christian  Church  in  dependence 
upon  Easter.  In  ver.  22  the  command  already 
given  in  xix.  9,  10,  is  appropriately  repeated  in 
connection  with  the  harvest  feast,  and  this  is 
again  reiterated  in  Deut.  xxiv.  19  in  connection 
with  precepts  of  kindness  to  the  needy. 

Vers.  23-25.  Here  begins  a  fresh  Divine  com- 
munication (the  third  of  this  chapter)  because 
the  present  feast  was,  like  those  of  the  first,  to 
come  into  immediate  use.  Lange:  "4.  The 
feast  of  Trombones,  or  the  new-moon  feast  of 
the  seventh  day  of  the  first  month."  [This  is 
apparently  a  slip  of  the  pen  for  the  first  day  of 
the  seventh  month. — F.  G.].  "The  lesser  new 
moon  feasts  are  not  mentioned  here  :  they  be- 
long more  to  the  ordinary  life  of  the  people  and 
to  the  State  (hence  Num.  xxviii.  11).  Also  the 
seventh  new  moon  is  here  only  very  briefly  men- 
tioned, and  significantly  described  as  Sabbathon 
Zilcron,  as  a  feast  Sabbath  which  was  to  be  a 
Sabbath  of  memorial.  The  festal  remembrance, 
however,  had  respect  to  the  new  holy  season 
which  dawned  with  the  seventh  month.  Thus 
as  the  first  feasts — Easter,  Mazzoth,  and  First- 
fruits— form  a  trilogy,  so  the  great  new  moon 
feast  makes  also  a  trilogy  with  the  following  Day 
of  Atonement  and  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  It  is  a 
feast  of  joyous  sounds  (njNiri)  to  awaken  a  na- 
tional festal  disposition  by  means  of  a  festival 
blowing,  not  however  with  'trumpets'  which 
were  not  ordered  till  Num.  x.,  and  with  their 
clear  piercing  tone  were  fitted  for  the  march  of 
the  army  of  God;  but  with  the  deep  droning  of 
horns,  trombones,  which  like  bells,  rather  affect 
deeply  than  arouse."  There  is  nothing  said  in 
the  text  of  any  instrument,  see  Textual  Note  15 
on  ver.  24;  but  as  the  silver  trumpets  were  to 
be  blown  on  all  the  new  moons,  and  on  all  other 
festal  occasions  (Num.  x.  10),  they  must  have 
been   blown    also   on   this  new  moon,  whatever 


CHAP.  XXIII.  1-44. 


177 


other  instruments  may  have  been  used  besides. 
"  In  the  modern  service  of  the  Synagogue,  Ps. 
Ixxxi.  is  used  at  the  feast  of  Trumpets."  Clark. 
The  general  view  of  the  Rabbinists  is  said  to 
have  been  that  it  was  a  commemoration  of  the 
creation  when  "  all  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for 
joy,"  Job  xxxviii.  7.  Other  commemorations, 
equally  fanciful,  have  been  proposed,  but  it  is 
unnecessary  to  look  beyond  the  fact  that  it  was 
New  Year's  day.  This  being  a  feast  when  it  was 
not  required  that  all  the  people  should  appear 
at  the  Sanctuary,  the  "holy  convocation"  was 
probably  observed,  like  the  weekly  Sabbath,  in 
each  town  and  village  throughout  the  land.  Ne- 
vertheless a  special  burnt  offering  (ver.  25)  was 
to  be  offered  at  the  Sanctuary,  and  this  is  spe- 
cified in  Num.  xxix.  1-6,  as  consisting  of  a  bul- 
lock, a  ram,  and  seven  lambs,  with  their  obla- 
tions and  drink  offerings. 

Vers.  26-32.  A  new  communication  is  made 
in  regard  to  the  Day  of  Atonement,  not  for  the 
reasons  given  before,  but  to  mark  the  import- 
ance of  the  day.  This  subject  has  been  so  fully 
treated  in  ch.  xvi.  that  little  need  be  said  here. 
It  was  on  this  day  and  not  on  the  first  of  the 
month  that  the  year  of  Jubilee  was  to  be  pro- 
claimed (xxv.  9).  On  this  day  also  the  peo- 
ple were  not  required  to  assemble  at  the  Sanc- 
tuary, and  the  holy  convocation  must  have 
been  kept  at  their  homes.  Lange :  "5.  The 
Day  of  Atonement.  It  is  a  noticeable  anomaly 
that  it  falls  upon  the  tenth  day.  Ten  is  the 
number  of  the  closed  history,  the  reckoning  up 
of  the  double  five,  the  well-used  or  badly-used 
freedom,  the  number  of  judgment.  The  Day  of 
Atonement  forms  the  climax  as  a  day  of  purifi- 
cation, ch.  xvi.  ;  here  it  is  an  introduction,  a 
preliminary  condition  for  the  great  feast  of  Ta- 
bernacles (this  relation  is  shown  by  the  }X  ver. 
27."  ["  By  the  restrictive  ^X,  the  observance 
of  the  day  of  atonement  is  represented  a  priori 
as  a  peculiar  one.  The  ^X  refers  less  to  the 
tenth  day,  than  to  the  leading  directions  re- 
specting this  feast."  Keil].  Num.  xxix.  7  sup- 
plies still  a  third  meaning,  as  a  social  or  political 
fast  day.  It  was  named  the  day  of  expiation 
(D"}33n).  Ye  shall  afflict  your  souls;  Lu- 
ther translates  arbitrarily  :  '  Ye  shall  afflict  your 
body,  mortify  your  body,  mortify  your  bodies.' 
Certainly  from  the  expression  of  the  original 
text,  the  fast  is  meant  in  Isa.  lviii.  3,  etc.  In  or- 
der that  the  neglect  might  be  visible  and  could 
be  punished,  and  that  the  limits  might  be  fixed, 
it  is  said:  from  even  unto  even.  For  this 
feast  also,  as  well  as  the  former  one,  every  busi- 
ness (not  only  labor)  was  forbidden."  [This 
cannot  be  meant  of  the  new  moon  of  the  seventh 
month,  on  which  only  servile  work  (ver.  25)  was 
forbidden. — F.  G.].  "  The  great  rigor  is  to  be 
noticed  with  which  the  penalty  of  death  was 
threatened  for  every  transgression  against  the 
rest  of  the  Sabbath  and  against  the  fast." 

Vers.  33-36.  The  ordinance  for  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  is  given  in  a  separate  communica- 
tion since  this  was  not  to  be  observed  until  the 
entrance  into  the  land  of  Canaan.  Lange:  "6. 
The  feast  of  Tabernacles  (ni3pn  JH).  The  feast 
is  made  prominent  by  being  celebrated  upon  the 
15th  and  not  on  the  14th  day."     [Just  as  the 


feast  of  unleavened  bread  began  on  the  15th  of 
the  first  mouth. — F.  G.].  "  And  .moreover,  by 
being  completed  by  an  eighth  day  (rHXJ?),  the 
closing  festal  assembly,  see  Jno.  vii.  37."  [There 
is  here  also  an  analogy  to  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread,  the  seven  days  of  which  were  preceded 
by  the  day  of  the  Passover.  In  strictness  the 
eighth  day  was  not  a  part  of  the  feast  which,  iu 
vers.  34  and  40,  is  declared  to  be  of  seven  days, 
and  in  Deut.  xvi.  13-15,  and  Ez.  xlv.  25,  there 
is  no  mention  at  all  of  the  eightti  day  ;  and  it  is 
also  distinguished  from  the  days  of  the  feast  pro- 
per by  the  much  smaller  number  of  the  victims 
to  be  offered  in  sacrifice,  Num.  xxix.  36.  More- 
over on  this  day  among  the  Hebrews  the  booths 
were  dismantled  and  the  people  returned  to  their 
houses. — F.  G.].  "The  first  and  eighth  days 
are  holy  Sabbaths  which  exclude  every  kind  of 
work."  [The  text,  however,  vers.  35,  36,  only 
forbids  servile  work. — F.  G.].  "  But  every- 
thing else  which  distinguishes  the  feasts  of  the 
Lord,  burnt  offerings,  oblations,  etc.,  (vers.  37, 
38)  distinguish  this  feast  abundantly."  [These 
offerings  are  specified  in  Num.  xxix.  12-38.  They 
consisted  of  a  he-goat  for  a  sin  offering  and  a 
burnt  offering  on  each  day.  The  latter  included 
two  rams  aud  fourteen  lambs  on  each  of  the 
days,  with  a  varying  number  of  bullocks.  Be- 
ginning with  thirteen  on  the  first  day,  they  were 
diminished  by  one  on  each  successive  day,  until 
on  the  seventh  only  seven  were  offered.  The 
burnt  offering  of  the  eighth  day  was  only  one 
bullock,  one  ram,  and  seven  lambs.  In  all  se- 
venty-one bullocks  were  wholly  consumed  upon 
the  altar,  together  with  fifteen  rams  and  one 
hundred  and  five  lambs. — F.  G.].  "It  is  also 
again  a  double  feast :  in  the  first  place  the  feast 
of  the  garnered  harvest,  the  third  harvest,  which 
includes  both  the  former  ones,  and  especially 
hallows  to  the  Lord  the  noblest  produce  of  the 
land:  the  inspiriting  fruits,  for  the  children 
(fruit),  for  the  old  (wine),  and  for  the  priests 
(oil)."  [The  fruit,  the  oil,  and  the  wine,  were 
however  all  alike  used  by  all  classes  in  the  com- 
munity.— F.  G.].  "And  then,  in  the  second 
place,  it  was  the  feast  of  the  memorial  of  the 
booths  in  which  Israel  had  dwelt  in  the  wilder- 
ness. The  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  must  have 
been  a  hardship  during  a  great  part  of  the  year, 
and  they  usually  dwelt  in  tents  ;  but  then  came 
the  Spring  and  Summer  time,  when  they  could 
build  booths,  and  such  a  time  would  be  particu- 
larly festive,  a  picture  of  a  paradisaical  life  of 
nature.  And  it  is  plain  that  here  the  subject 
must  be  neither  the  lasting  sufferings  of  the  wil- 
derness nor  the  settlement  in  Canaan.  Hence 
also  the  tents  must  be  made  from  goodly  trees." 
[The  feast  of  Tabernacles  did  not  itself  occur  in 
the  Spring  or  Summer,  but  late  in  the  fall,  a 
month  or  more  after  the  autumnal  equinox.  No 
evidence  is  adduced  to  show  that  the  Israelites 
in  the  wilderness  at  any  time  lived  otherwise 
than  in  tents,  and  indeed  during  a  large  part 
of  their  wanderings  the  construction  of  booths 
would  have  been  impossible  from  the  scarcity  of 
trees.  The  reference  to  the  booths  (surcot/i) 
seems  to  be  rather  to  the  first  encampments  of 
the  Exodus  (comp.  Ex.  xii.  37;  xiii.  20),  when 
they  must  have  been  as  yet  very  imperfectly  sup- 
plied with  tents.— F.  G.J.     "  So  the  feast  of  ta- 


178 


LEVITICUS. 


bernacles  was  the  highest  feast  in  Israel  (a 
bright  contrast  to  the  feast  of  Purim  introduced 
afterwards,  which  was  darkened  by  fanaticism), 
and  was  a  type  of  the  highest  and  most  beautiful 
Christian  popular  feasts.  Upon  the  single  feast 
comp.  the  Lexicons,  also  Keil  (p.  153  [Trans,  p. 
446]),  and  Knobel  (p.  549).  That  this  feast 
could  readily  bring  in  peculiar  temptations  is 
shown  by  the  story  of  the  adulteress,  Jno.  viii." 
[This  inference  must  depend  upon  the  decision 
that  the  passage  referred  to  is  a  genuine  part  of 
the  Gospel,  and  is  found  in  its  proper  place.  It 
is  also  further  to  be  noticed  that  the  women  of 
Israel  were  not  required  to  dwell  in  the  booths. 
— F.  G.].  "But  we  may  see  also  partially  from 
Jno.  vii.,  how  it  had  been  in  the  course  of  time 
endowed  with  the  richest  symbolism,  as  a  preach- 
er-feast, as  a  fountain-feast,  as  a  feast  of 
lights,  the  culmination  of  the  Old  Testament  fes- 
tival seasons."  [It  is  noticeable  that  this  feast 
was  the  time  chosen  by  Solomon  for  the  dedica- 
tion of  the  temple,  1  Kings  viii.  2. — F.  G.]. 

"  Upon  the  observance  of  the  line  of  feasts  in 
the  sabbatical  year  and  year  of  Jubilee,  see  ch. 
xxv.  On  the  later  Jewish  feasts,  see  Bibl.  Wor- 
terbuch  far  das  Christl.  Volk  under  the  article 
Feste.  So  too  the  feasts  of  the  later  Jews  in 
Herzog's  Eeal-Encyclopadie.'"  For  additional 
matter  concerning  this  feast,  see  under  verses 
39-42. 

In  vers.  37,  38,  is  a  summary  distinctly  speci- 
fying that  these  appointed  times,  with  their  of- 
ferings, are  additional  to  the  weekly  Sabbaths 
mentioned  in  ver.  3,  and  their  offerings.  Be- 
Bide  the  Sabbaths  is  comprehensive,  including 
both  the  day  and  the  sacrifice  offered  upon  it.  It 
means  beside  them  in  regard  to  the  other  ap- 
pointed days,  and  beside  their  offerings  as  re- 
gards the  offerings  belongiag  to  these. 

Vers.  39-43  contain  additional  directions  for 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles.  Nothing  has  been  said 
in  the  previous  verses  of  the  dwelling  in  booths, 
as  the  object  there  was  only  to  treat  of  it  as  an 
appointed  time  with  its  days  of  holy  convoca- 
tion. Here,  however,  this  is  introduced  by  it- 
self, as  a  necessary  direction,  yet  so  as  not  to 
disturb  the  singleness  of  view  in  which  the  whole 
cycle  of  feasts  has  been  presented.  There  is  no 
occasion,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  this  is  a  dis- 
tinct document  subsequently  added.  As  this 
precept  has  reference  simply  to  the  dwelling  in 
booths,  there  is  no  repetition  of  the  command 
for  the  holy  convocations,  or  for  the  sacrifices, 
and  no  mention  of  the  eighth  day,  on  which  they 
returned  to  their  houses.  It  was  pre-eminently 
a  joyous  festival  (ver.  40),  as  comported  with  its 
character  as  a  harvest  feast.  On  the  Sabbatical 
year  at  this  time  the  law  was  to  be  publicly  read 
in  the  hearing  of  all  the  people  of  all  classes,  in- 
cluding the  "  strangers,"  Deut.  xxxi.  9-13  ;  Neh. 
viii.  18. 

In  later  times  two  significant  customs  were 
added  to  the  daily  observances  of  the  feast.  At 
the  time  of  the  morning  sacrifice  on  each  day  a 
priest  drew  water  from  the  pool  of  Siloam  in  a 
golden  pitcher  and  bringing  it  in  to  the  altar 
poured  it  out  with  the  libation  of  wine.  This 
probably  suggested  the  words  of  our  Lord  in 
Jno.  vii.  37,  38.  Also  in  the  evening  the  men 
and  women  assembled  together  in  the  court  of 


the  women  to  rejoice  over  the  ceremony  of  the 
morning,  the  occasion  being  marked  by  great 
hilarity.  At  this  time  two  tall  stands  were  set 
up  in  the  court,  each  bearing  four  lamps  of  large 
size,  the  wicks  being  made  of  the  cast  off  gar- 
ments of  the  priests,  and  the  oil  supplied  by  the 
sons  of  the  priests.  Many  of  the  people  also 
carried  flambeaux,  and  the  light  is  said  to  have 
been  cast  over  nearly  the  whole  city.  This  ce- 
remony seems  to  have  called  forth  our  LoiJ's 
words  in  Jno.  viii.  12,  "I  am  the  Light  of  the 
world."  During  both  these  ceremonies  the 
choirs  of  Levites  chanted  appropriate  psalms, 
and  the  people  participated  by  carrying  in  their 
hands  green  branches  and  fruit.  There  is  a  cu- 
rious contrast  between  the  cycle  of  annual  festi- 
vals in  the  Jewish  and  in  the  Christian  Church  ; 
in  both  of  them  the  festivals  extend  through 
about  six  months,  but  in  the  former,  in  which 
earthly  blessings  are  everywhere  prominent,  it 
began  with  the  14thNisan,  and  extended  through 
the  summer;  in  the  latter,  in  which  the  thought 
is  more  directed  to  spiritual  blessings,  it  begins 
with  the  early  winter  and  extends  round  to  the 
summer. 

DOCTRINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  The  weekly  Sabbath  is  the  beginning  and 
foundation  of  all  the  festivals,  for  herein  God  is 
acknowledged  as  the  Creator  of  all  things  and 
of  man.  By  that  the  people  were  joined  to  God, 
and  so  made  ready  for  keeping  the  other  festi- 
vals of  His  appointment.  This  was  fixed  for  the 
older  church  upon  the  seventh  day,  in  memorial 
of  their  deliverance  from  Egypt,  the  era  of  their 
national  existence;  just  as  for  the  Christian 
Church  it  is  fixed  upon  the  first  day  in  memorial 
of  Christ's  resurrection,  on  which  rests  the  whole 
existence  and  constitution  of  that  Church. 

II.  By  the  offering  of  the  first-fruits  to  God 
the  whole  harvest  was  sanctified,  comp.  Rom.  xi. 
16.  Until  this  had  been  done,  no  Israelite  might 
partake  of  the  harvest  at  all.  God's  gifts  are 
freely  bestowed  upon  men;  but  they  may  not, 
lawfully  appropriate  them  to  their  own  use  until 
they  have  acknowledged  the  Giver. 

III.  In  the  three  harvest  festivals  the  domi- 
nion of  God  over  nature  is  emphatically  asserted. 
It  is  asserted  in  opposition  alike  to  that  Pan- 
theism which  underlay  so  much  of  the  ancient 
heathen  mythology,  and  which  would  worship 
the  earth  itself  as  the  giver  of  its  fruits,  while 
here  the  homage  is  rendered  to  the  Lord  of  the 
earth  as  distinct  from  and  infinitely  exalted 
above  the  earth;  and  it  is  asserted  in  opposition 
to  Deism,  which  would  so  separate  the  Deity  from 
His  works  as  to  make  them  in  a  sense  indepen- 
dent of  Him,  while  here  He  is  recognized  as 
their  immediate  Ruler  and  the  Author  of  every 
earthly  blessing. 

IV.  Leaven,  which  is  for  the  most  part  for- 
bidden in  oblations,  and  altogether  prohibited 
from  coming  upon  the  altar,  is  here  commanded 
for  the  wave  offering  of  the  first-fruits  of  the 
wheat  harvest,  very  plainly  for  the  express  ob- 
ject of  teaching  that  the  ordinary  food  of  the 
people  is  to  be  sanctified  by  an  offering  to  God, 
and  thus  in  all  things  He  is  first  of  all  to  be  re- 
cognized. 


CHAP.  XXIV.  1-9. 


179 


V.  The  peculiarity  of  a  peace  offering  from 
the  whole  congregation  marks  the  Pentecostal 
feast  alone.  At  the  beginning  of  the  wheat  har- 
vest, the  principal  harvest  of  human  food,  it  was 
peculiarly  appropriate  that  it  should  be  marked 
by  the  sacrifice  of  communion  with  God. 

VI.  In  connection  with  the  feast  of  the  har- 
vest comes  again  into  prominence  the  care  for 
the  poor  in  the  prohibition  of  gleaning.  God 
leaves  the  poor  always  with  us  that  man  may 
learn  through  them  to  imitate  Himself  in  giving 
freely  to  those  who  need  out  of  the  abundance 
He  has  given  to  us. 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Lange :  "  The  feasts  of  the  Lord  and  the  festal 
ordinances  (ch.  xxiii.).  Their  double  basis:  1) 
the  work,  2)  the  Sabbath.  The  Sabbath  is  the 
end  of  the  trouble  of  labor,  as  Sunday  is  the  be- 
ginning of  festal  work.  The  Old  Testament 
feasts  in  the  light  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
Jewish  Passover  is  a  double  feast;  a  type  of 
Christmas  and  of  Easter.  The  Jewish  and  the 
Christian  Pentecostal  feast.  The  Jewish  feast 
of  Atonement  and  the  Christian  Ascension-Day 
(comp.  Heb.  is.  24).  The  Jewish  feast  of  Ta- 
bernacles and  the  Christian  harvest  feast.  The 
threefold  Jewish  harvest  feast,  Easter,  Pentecost 
and  Tabernacles,  a  threefold  type  of  the  Divine 
blessing  in  the  kingdom  of  nature,  and  in  the 
kingdom  of  grace  (the  first-fruits,  the  daily  bread, 
the  festival  wine).  The  great  Day  of  Atonement, 
as  a  day  of  repentance,  and  as  a  day  of  the  Gos- 
pel. Comparison  between  the  Day  of  Atonement 
and  Good- Friday,  between  Christmas  and  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles.  How  all  feasts  by  their 
historical  significance  are  linked  with  one  an- 


other, and  by  their  spiritual  significance  play 
into  one  another.  The  feast  is  made  gay  with 
green  boughs." 

As  the  Sabbath  is  made  the  foundation  of  all 
festivals,  so  must  the  sanctificatiou  of  the  weekly 
day  of  rest  ever  be  the  condition  of  all  accepta- 
ble consecration  of  "appointed  times"  to  the 
Lord.  The  days  on  which  no  work  at  all  might 
be  done  are  only  the  weekly  Sabbaths  and  the 
Day  of  Atonement;  but  the  additional  days  on 
which  no  servile  work  might  be  done  were  nearly 
half  as  many  more.  These  last  therefore  were 
days  of  rest  to  the  slave  and  the  hired  laborer. 
The  law  would  have  days  when  the  hard  labor 
of  life  must  cease  without  suspending  its  activity 
altogether,  and  gives  its  most  numerous  days  of 
rest  to  those  who  must  be  employed  in  life's 
drudgery. 

The  rejoicing  before  the  Lord  which  is  here, 
ver.  40,  and  in  Deut.  xvi.  11  commanded  with 
especial  reference  to  the  feasts  of  Tabernacles 
and  of  Pentecost,  is  elsewhere  made  into  a  more 
general  duty,  Deut.  xii.  12,  18;  xxvii.  7.  If  joy 
was  a  commanded  duty  under  the  Old  Dispensa- 
tion, how  much  more  under  the  Christian.  See 
Phil.  iv.  4,  etc. 

The  three  great  festivals  were  occasions  of 
gathering  all  the  males  of  Israel  together,  and 
promoting  the  sense  of  their  common  brother- 
hood. The  effect  in  this  regard  of  united  wor- 
ship is  very  plain.  But  especially  at  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles,  all  were  required  to  dwell  in 
booths,  and  for  the  time  distinctions  of  rank  and 
social  position  were  levelled.  Thus,  as  every- 
where under  the  Old  Dispensation,  principles  of 
the  Gospel  were  taught  by  symbolical  acts,  and 
the  brotherhood  of  all  the  people  of  God  pre- 
sented in  sensible  type  and  act. 


SECOND   SECTION. 


Of  the  Holy  Lamps,  and  the  Shew  Bread. 

Chapter  XXIV.  1-9. 

1,  2     And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Command  the  children  of  Israel,  that 
they  bring  unto  thee  pure  oil  olive  beaten  for  the  light,  to  cause  the  lamps  to  burn 

3  continually.     Without  the  vail  of  the  testimony,  iu  the  tabernacle  of  the  [omit  the] 
congregation,  shall  Aaron1  order  it  from  the  evening  unto  the  morning  before  the 

4  Lord  continually :  it  shall  be  a  statute  for  ever  iu  your  generations.     He  shall 
order  the  lamps  upon  the  pure  candlestick  before  the  Lord  continually. 

5  And  thou  shalt  take  fine  flour,  and  bake  twelve  cakes  thereof:  two  tenth  deals 

6  shall  be  in  one  cake.     And  thou  shalt  set  them  in  two  rows  [piles2],  six  on  a  row 

7  [pile2],  upon  the  pure  table  before  the  Lord.     And  thou  shalt  put  pure  frankin- 
cense8 upon  each  row  [pile2],  that  it  may  be  on*  the  bread  for  a  memorial,  even  an 


TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 

1  Ver.  3.  The  Sam.  and  LXX.  here  insert  und  hi*  sons  from  Ex.  xxvii.  21. 

2  Vers.  6,  7.  The  Heb.  rD*1>*0>  referring  etyniologically  to  au  orderly  arrangement,  means  either  «  row  or  a  pile,  and 

Is  used  in  both  senses.  The  size  of  the  loaves,  however,  containing  each  about  six  pounds  and  a  quarter  of  flour,  as  com- 
pared with  the  size  of  tho  table,  two  cubits  long  by  one  btoad.  makes  it  more  probable  that  pile  was  intended  here.  Jose- 
plius  (Ant.  III.  6,  0;  10,  7)  expressly  says,  that  this  was  the  arrangement. 


180 


LEVITICUS. 


8  offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord.  Every  sabbath  he  shall  set  it  in  order  before  the 
Lord  continually,  being  taken  from  the  children  of  Israel  by  an  everlasting  covenant. 

9  And  it  shall  be  Aaron's  and  his  sons'  ;  and  they  shall  eat  it5  in  the  holy  place : 
for  it  is  most  holy  unto  him  of  the  offerings  of  the  Lord  made  by  fire  by  a  perpe- 
tual statute. 

3  Ver.  7.  The  LXX.  adds  and  Bait,  which  ia  probably  to  be  understood  in  accordance  with  ii.  13,  or  the  salt  may  have 
been  used  in  making  up  the  loaves. 

*  Ver.  7.  0n^?7-    The  force  of  the  preposition  is  questioned.    Both  the  senses  on  and  for  are  true  in  themselves.    The 

incense  was  placed  upnn  the  piles,  according  to  JosephuB  {ubi  sup.)  in  golden  cups,  and  it  was  also  burned  for  the  bread  aa 
a  memorial.     Thelatter  sense,  however,  is  sufficiently  expressed  by  the  worls  for  a  memorial. 
6  Ver.  9.  The  pronoun,  wanting  in  the  Heb.,  is  supplied  in  the  Sam.  and  in  8  MSS. 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL. 

The  commands  for  the  holy  lights  and  the 
shewbread  here  follow  in  a  special  communica- 
tion, to  complete  the  provisions  for  the  typical 
holiness  of  the  Hebrew  cultus.  The  former  has 
already  been  given,  almost  verbatim  in  Ex.  xxvii. 
20,  21,  prospectively  in  connection  with  the  pro- 
visions for  the  whole  service  of  the  sanctuary. 
Now  the  command  is  actually  given,  and  in  Num. 
viii.  3  its  fulfilment  is  recorded.  The  phrase- 
ology of  ver.  2,  Command  the  children  of 
Israel  that  they  bring,  with  that  in  ver.  8, 
taken  from  the  children  of  Israel,  shows 
that  both  the  oil  and  the  flour  for  the  shewbread 
were  of  the  nature  of  oblations,  gifts  to  the  Lord 
from  the  people  continually.  Vers.  2-4  relate  to 
the  oil  and  the  lamps;  vers.  5-9  to  the  shew- 
bread. 

Ver.  2.  Pure  oil  olive  beaten — pure  in 
being  freed  before  the  berries  were  crushed  from 
all  leaves,  twigs,  dust,  etc.;  and  beaten  in  con- 
tradistinction to  pressed  in  the  oil-presses.  By 
this  beating  the  oil  of  the  best  quality  flowed  out 
nearly  colorless.  Continually,  ver.  3,  refers 
to  the  perpetuity  of  the  ordinance,  not  to  the  un- 
interrupted burning  of  the  lamps  ;  for  according 
to  the  previous  part  of  the  verse,  Aaron  was  to 
order  it  from  the  evening  unto  the  morn- 
ing, and  according  to  Ex.  xxx.  7,  8,  he  was  to 
dress  the  lamps  in  the  morning  and  to  light  them 
at  even.  The  pure  candlestick  of  ver.  4,  like 
the  pure  table  of  ver.  6,  refers  to  the  pure  gold 
with  which  they  were  made,  and  which  was  of 
course  kept  free  from  all  stain. 

Vers.  5-9.  Fine  flour  always  means  of  wheat. 
The  frankincense,  as  a  gift  from  the  people, 
must  necessarily  be  the  natural  gum,  and  is  to 
be  distinguished  from  the  compound  incense 
■which  was  burnt  daily  upon  the  altar  of  incense. 
Lange  (see  below)  is  inclined  to  admit  the  opi- 
nion of  Knobel  that  the  loaves  of  shewbread 
were  leavened;  Josephus,  however  (Ant.  111.  6, 
6;  10,  7),  distinctly  asserts  the  contrary  and 
nearly  all  Jewish  and  other  authorities  agree 
with  him.  "  Since  the  bread  was  brought  into 
the  Holy  place  (which  was  not  the  case  with  the 
Pentecostal  bread)  it  almost  certainly  came  un- 
der the  general  law  of  the  meat  offerings,  which 
excluded  the  use  of  leaven  (ii.  11)."  Clark.  It 
niay  be  added  that  the  shewbread  was  changed 
only  once  a  week,  and  leavened  bread,  exposed 
to  I  lie  air,  could  hardly  have  been  kept  in  condi- 
tion for  eating  so  long.  The  loaves  were  twelve 
in  accordance  with  the  number  of  the  tribes  of 
Israel.     They  were  most  holy,  so  that  when 


removed  from  the  table  they  might,  be  eaten  only 
by  the  priests  in  a  holy  place.  The  action  of 
Abimelech  therefore  in  giving  them  to  David  (1 
Sam.  xxi.  4-6)  was  a  clear  violation  of  the  law, 
and  is  justified  by  our  Lord  (Matt.  xii.  4)  on  the 
principle  that  there  are  cases  of  urgency  which 
override  the  technical  provisions  of  the  statute. 

Lange  :  "  The  holy  candlestick,  with  the  shew- 
bread, here  makes  the  tabernacle  the  inner  cen- 
tre of  all  consecrations,  the  holy  place /car'  s^oxfiv, 
which  moves  forth  and  spreads  far  into  the  holy 
land  ;  and  the  innermost  principle  of  this  centre 
is  the  name  of  Jehovah  which  comes  to  be 
spoken  farther  on. 

"  On  the  holy  candlestick  see  the  particular 
directions,  Ex.  xxv.  30;  xxxvii.  17,  and  Num. 
viii.  2;  ccfnip.  Zech.  iv.  2.  But  it  is  mentioned 
here  the  second  time,  not.  because  according  to 
the  first  command  only  Aaron  was  fitted  for  the 
function  ;  but  because  it  here  forms  the  soul  of 
the  cultus,  as  farther  on,  in  Num.,  it  becomes 
the  very  climax  of  the  theocratic  political  life, 
the  light  of  the  nation.  Even  less  here  than  be- 
fore can  one  speak  of  the  lamp  of  good  works. 
There  is  a  strange  propensity  to  place  human 
attributes  in  place  of  Divine  in  the  very  house 
of  God,  even  as  far  as  to  the  Cherubim  in  the 
holy  of  holies.*  The  candlestick  is  the  seven- 
fold figure  of  the  revelation  of  Jehovah,  the  type 
of  the  Seven  Spirits,  Rev.  i.  But  it  must  be  no- 
ticed that  the  congregation  had  to  furnish  the 
anointing  oil"  [Salbol,  i.  e.,  the  oil  for  this  sa- 
cred use,  not  the  oil  for  anointing  the  priests, 
— F.  G.],  "  for  the  congregation  was  to  be  the 
substratum  of  all  illuminations,  not  the  priest- 
hood alone.  In  like  manner  is  the  command 
significant  that  the  lamps  were  to  be  lit  forever 
and  ever. 

"  The  shewbread  is  called  '  bread  of  the  pre- 
sence,' '  of  my  presence  '  (Ex.  xxv.  30)  in  that 
they  lay  before  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  who, 
in  a  symbolical  sense,  here  holds  a  meal  with 
His  priests  (see  Rev.  iii.  20)  as  they  in  the  first 
place  represent  the  twelve  tribes  of  the  holy 
people.  On  this  account,  then,  the  loaves  were 
twelve,  and  since  they  were  arranged  in  two  or- 
dered rows  of  six  opposite  six  loaves  (differing 
from  the  twelve  precious  stones  of  the  breast- 
plate) they  were  called  also  the  loaves  of  the 
ranging  together,  the  table  of  the  succession  and 
similarly.   Keil,  p.  158."      [Trans,  p.  452.     Keil 

*  Keil :  "This  Bervioa  consisted  in  the  fact,  that  in  the  oil 
of  the  lamps  of  1 1 1 «-  seven  branched  candlestick,  which  burned 
before  Jehovah,  the  nation  of  Israel  manifested  itself  as  a 
congregation  which  caused  its  light  to  shine  in  the  darkness 
of  this  world  ;  and  that  in  tie-  shewbread  i'  offered  Inn  fruits 
of  its  labor  Oi  lb"  field  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  a  Bpintual 
sacrilice  to  Jehovah."  [Trans,  p.  451J. 


CHAP.  XXIV.  1-9. 


181 


thinks  that  the  loaves  were  placed  in  rows,  but 
does  not  mention  these  names.  On  the  arrange- 
ment, see  Textual  Note  2  on  ver.  6. — F.  G.]. 
"  And  since  it  is  known  that  leaven  in  itself  con- 
tains nothing  evil,  although  like  honey  it  might 
not  be  placed  upon  the  altar,  the  supposition  of 
Kuobel  (Keil  to  the  contrary)  has  nothing  hazar- 
dous, that  the  shewbread  was  leavened.  Un- 
doubtedly it  is  to  be  considered  that  among  the 
later  Jews  they  were  unleavened;  but  against  this 
must  be  weighed  the  fact  that  they  formed  an  im- 
portant constituent  of  the  food  of  the  officiating 
priests  who  ate  them  as  a  most  holy  thing,  after 
they  were  carried  out,  and  that  these  loaves 
were  never  actually  offered,  but  only  hallowed 
to  Jehovah,  while  their  offering  was  signified  by 
the  incense  which  went  with  them  as  a  memo- 
rial (ver.  7,  Azkara).  The  view  that  the  in- 
cense was  not  strewed  upon  the  bread,  but  placed 
beside  it  in  golden  shells,  is  certainly  strength- 
ened by  the  purpose  of  incense,  which  was 
burned  as  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  Jeho- 
vah. It  is  the  sacrifice  of  prayer  which  is  espe- 
cially associated  with  the  priestly  communion,  a 
"Grace"  said  before  the  Lord  in  the  highest 
sense. 

"The  supposition  of  Knobel  and  others  that 
the  table,  with  shewbread  and  kindred  things, 
represented  the  house  of  God  as  au  imitation  of 
a  human  house,  is  a  flat  travesty  of  the  holy 
house  into  that  which  is  common  ;  it  rests  upon 
a  misunderstanding  of  the  religious  symbolism 
of  the  house  of  God,  and  in  it  the  sleeping  cham- 
ber, e.  g.,  the  bed,  and  similar  things  must  be 
missed."  [To  define  the  exact  boundaries  be- 
tween anthropomorphic  language  and  representa- 
tions on  the  one  hand,  and  pure  statements  of 
truth  and  pure  symbolism  on  the  other,  is  ex- 
tremely difficult,  and  will  probably  always  re- 
main impossible,  while  man  is  still  compelled  to 
use  so  much  of  anthropomorphic  terms  even  in 
the  most  abstract  and  philosophical  discussion 
of  Divine  things.  Undoubtedly  the  Hebrew  mind 
was  gradually  led  up  to  the  conception  of  Di- 
vine realities  by  the  exaltation  of  human  expres- 
sions, and  hence  occur  such  forms  as  "  the  food," 
•'  the  table,"  "  the  house  of  the  Lord  ;"  in  grosser 
minds  these  would  have  been  associated  with 
grosser  ideas,  while  for  those  of  higher  spiritual 
elevation,  there  was  just  enough  of  symbolism  in 
these  terms  to  enable  them,  by  their  means,  to 
rise  above  them  to  more  spiritual  and  exalted 
couceptions.  To  this  it  was  essential  that  the 
human  imagery  should  be  imperfect  and  wanting 
in  many  particulars. — F.  G.]. 

DOCTRINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  The  symbolism  of  the  seven-branched  can- 
dlestick is  applied  in  the  Apocalyose  to  the  Holy 


Spirit.  Meantime  in  its  perpetual  burning  du- 
ring the  night  there  is  also  the  subordinate 
teaching  that  from  the  worship  of  God  all  dark- 
ness and  obscurity  are  to  be  banished  by  the  in- 
fluence of  that  Spirit.  To  this  the  people  are 
themselves  to  contribute  by  bringing  the  purest 
oil  for  the  feeding  of  the  lamps.  The  Holy  Spirit 
ever  works  upon  man  through  that  which  is  in 
man,  and  man  may  receive  the  Divine  Guest  in 
his  heart,  or  may  grieve  Him  and  quench  His 
holy  influence. 

II.  In  the  shewbread,  as  the  culmination  of 
all  oblations,  is  expressed  on  the  one  hand  the 
consecration  to  God  of  all  that  belongs  to  man 
by  placing  bread,  the  staff  of  human  life,  con- 
tinually before  His  presence;  and  on  the  other, 
the  condescension  of  God  to  communion  with 
man  in  making  these  loaves  the  food  of  His 
priests.  The  incense,  burned  as  a  memorial, 
represented  the  Divine  acceptance  of  the  gift, 
and,  as  Lange  has  suggested,  symbolized  the 
prayer  with  which  the  priests  must  draw  near  to 
this  communion.  It  is  further  to  be  noted  that 
this  was  not  the  sacred  incense  of  the  sanctuary, 
but  the  frankincense  of  the  people's  offering.  As 
the  loaves  represented  the  twelve  tribes,  so  this 
frankincense  represented  the  people's  prayers; 
and  in  this  symbolic  act  of  communion,  the 
priests  on  God's  behalf  pratook  of  the  food,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  sin  offering. 

i 
HOMILETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL. 

Lange  :  "  The  proper  maintenance  for  the  can- 
dlestick in  the  house  of  God.  The  table  of  the 
Lord  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament forms.  The  Lord  at  His  table:  l)asthe 
Bread  of  heaven ;  2)  as  the  Host ;  3)  as  the 
Guest." 

In  the  worship  of  God  light  and  clearness  are 
ever  to  take  the  place  of  darkness  and  obscurity. 
The  clear  shining  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  direction 
is  always  to  be  sought  in  all  approach  to  God, 
and  to  this  end  the  pure  oil  is  to  be  furnished  by 
the  people  for  the  lamps;  an  honest  and  good 
heart  is  to  be  prepared  for  the  Spirit's  dwelling. 

Through  the  grace  of  God  man  becomes  a  par- 
taker of  the  table  of  the  Lord.  This  must  be  ac- 
companied with  the  incense  of  prayer.  It  was 
to  be  a  statute  for  ever,  a  perpetually  recurring 
act  of  communion  with  God. 

Origen  :  The  light  of  the  Jews  grew  dim  as  the 
oil  of  their  piety  failed  ;  the  foolish  virgins  were 
excluded  from  the  marriage  when  their  lamps 
were  gone  out  for  the  want  of  oil ;  so  Christians 
must  furnish  the  oil  of  earnest  effort  after  holi- 
ness, that  the  flame  of  the  Spirit  may  burn  in 
their  hearts,  so  that  men  may  see  their  good 
works,  and  that  their  lamps  may  be  burning 
when  the  Master  comes. 


182  LEVITICUS. 


THIRD    SECTION. 

Historical. — The  Punishment  of  a  Blasphemer. 

"The  keeping  holy  of  the  Theocratic  Religion,  and  of  the  Name  of  Jehovah,  by  means  of  an  explicit 

example." — Vers.  10-10. 

"  The  keeping  holy  of  punishnent,  and  of  the  distinction  of  punishment,  whose 
culmination  is  stoning."   Vers.  17-23. — Lakge. 

Chapter  XXIV.  10-23. 

10  And  the  son  of  an  Israelitish  woman,  whose  father  was  an  Egyptian,  went  out 
amono-  the  children  of  Israel :  and  this  son  of  the  Israelitish  woman  and  a  man  of 

11  Israef  strove  together  in  the  camp  ;  and  the  Israeliiish  woman's  son  blasphemed1 
the  name  of  the  LORD  [omit  of  the  LORD2],  and  cursed.  And  they  brought  him 
unto  Moses :  (and  his  mother's  name  was  Shelomith,  the  daughter  of  Dibri,  of  the 

12  tribe  of  Dan:)  and  they  put  him  in  ward,  that  the  mind  of  the  Lord  might  be 
shewed  them. 

13, 14     And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Bring  forth  him  that  hath  cursed 
'  without  the  camp  ;  and  let  all  that  heard  him  lay  their  hands  upon  his  head,  and 

15  let  all  the  congregation  stone  him.     And  thou  shalt  speak  unto  the  children  of 

16  Israel,  saying.^Whosoever  curseth  his  God  shall  bear  his  sin.  And  he  that  blas- 
phemeth  the°name  of  the  Lord,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death,  and  all  the  con- 
gregation shall  certainly  stone  him  :  as  well  the  stranger  as  he  that  is  born  in  the 
land,  when  he  blasphemeth1  the  name  of  the  LORD  [omit  of  the  LORD']  shall  be 
put  to  death. 

17  18     And  he  that  killeth3  any  man  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.     And  he  that  kill- 
19'  eth3  a  beast  shall  make  it  good ;  beast3  for  beast.3     And  if  a  man  cause  a  blemish 

20  in  his  neighbour ;  as  he  hath  done,  so  shall  it  be  done  to  him ;  breach  for  breach, 
eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth :  as  he  hath  caused  a  blemish  in  a  man,  so  shall  it  be 

21  done  to  him  again.     And  he  that  killeth3  a  beast,  he  shall  restore  it :  and  he  that 

22  killeth3  a  man,  he  shall  be  put  to  death.  Ye4  shall  have  one  manner  of  law,  as 
well  for  the  stranger  as  for  one  of  your  own  country :  for  I  am  the  Lord  your  God. 

23  And  Moses  spake  to  the  children  of  Israel,  that  they  should  bring  forth  him  that 
had  cursed  out  of  the  camp,  and  stone  him  with  stones.  And  the  children  of  Israel 
did  as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses. 

TEXTUAL  AND  GRAMMATICAL. 
1  Vera.  11, 16.  3p  1  according  to  all  the  best  critical  authorities,  means  to  revile,  to  blaspheme  ;  the  LXX.  and  Targums, 
however,  interpret  it  as"  meaning  to  utter  distinctly,  tiros  embodying  the  Jewish  tradition  of  the  unlawfulness  of  uttering  the 
name  ol jWlk  See  "-Jjf^,  „  better  omiUed|  allowing  th  „„  t0  8tanil  exactly  as  in  the  Heb  and  all  .be 
Ancient  Versions  where  the  Name  evidently  means  the  Name  «ar  i{oXr,v,  the  name  of  Jehovah,  In  ver.  16  the  aiticle 
"  '^^ViSi^SStS^SaS^t  m  very  freely,  as  is  in  part  indicated  in  the  marginal  readings  of  the 
A.  V.  Translating  U?3J  <oul,  vers.  17, 18  will  read  literally,  And  be  that  smiteth  the  soul  of  any  man  shall  die  the  death, 
»nd  he  that  smiteth  thVsoul  of  a  beast  shall  make  it  good ;  soul  for  soul.    Similarly  in  ver.  21.    A  few  MSS.  omit  the  tfflj 

befTver?^!  VbeSamaha82the  sing.    Seven  MSS.  of  that  version,  however,  follow  the  plural  form  of  the  Ueb. 

tainly  in  this  place  ought  to  stand  the  principle 

of  all  consecrations,  the  name  of  Jehovah,  and  it 

EXEGETICAL   AND   CRITICAL.  fi(g  ;Q  with  the  higu  imp01.tance  of  keeping  this 

The  whole  of  Lange's  Exegetical  is  here  given.  Name  holy  that  tho  law,  in  its  genesis,  should  be 
"According  lo  Knobel  the  foregoing  section  introduced  with  a  fearful  example.  .Similarly 
stands  disconnectedly  in  this  place.     But  cer-    the  history  of  the  Sabbath-breaker  is  introduced. 


CHAP.  XXIV.  10-23. 


183 


Num.  xv.  32."  [Of  course  the  immediate  reason 
for  the  introduction  of  the  narrative  is  that  the 
event,  actually  occurred  just  at  this  point  in 
the  communication  of  this  legislation  to  the 
people,  and  it  thus  constitutes  one  of  the 
strong  incidental  marks  of  the  time  when 
that  legislation  was  given.  Lange  shows 
that  its  mention  was  the  very  reverse  of  inop- 
portune. It  is  noticeable  that  the  patronymic 
Israelite  is  found  elsewhere  only  in  2  Sam.  xvii. 
25  ;  and  the  adjective  Israelitish  occurs  only  here. 
It  is  used  in  opposition  to  Egyptian  as  the  two 
terms  are  likely  to  have  been  used  at  the  time 
in  the  camp.  So  in  2  Sam.  xvii.  25  it  is  used  of 
a  man  of  the  ten  tribes  in  opposition  to  the  two. 
— F.  G.]. 

"  The  son  of  an  Israelitish  woman  and  an 
Egyptian  man  went  out  into  the  midst  of  the 
Israelites,  i.  e.,  he  betook  himself  to  the  camp 
of  the  latter.  He  belonged  to  the  strangers  who 
journeyed  with  Israel  (Ex.  xii.  38).  As  an 
Egyptian,  he  dwelt  certainly  somewhat  removed, 
since  he  was  not  a  member  of  the  congregation 
of  Jehovah  ;  for  only  in  the  third  generation  was 
an  Egyptian  to  be  taken  iu  (Deut.  xxiii.  8)." 
[Although  this  law  had  not  yet  been  announced, 
Lange's  supposition  is  altogether  probable,  and 
the  man  doubtless  formed  one  of  the  "mixed 
multitude"  who  lived  on  the  outskirts  of  the 
camp,  comp.  Num.  xi.  1,  4. — F.  G.].  "The  Is- 
raelites encamped  according  to  the  houses  of 
their  tribes"  (Num.  ii.  2).  In  the  camp  a  strife 
arose  ;  "  a  quarrel  sprang  up  between  him  and 
the  Israelitish  man,  that  is,  between  him  and  the 
men  of  Israel"  (Knobel).  Against  the  very  ap- 
propriate view  that  H'K  stands  collectively,  see 
the  grammatical  note  of  Keil,  p.  158. 

"  The  history  certainly  tells  us  how  the  Egyp- 
tian offended  in  an  ascending  scale,  even  up  to 
the  blaspheming  Jehovah.  The  text,  ver.  10, 
shows  that  the  Egyptian  man  had  come  in  with 
a  certain  degree  of  impudence  into  the  midst  of 
the  camp  of  Israel,  where  he  did  not  belong. 
From  this  it  is  also  to  be  concluded  that  he  ex- 
cited here  a  religious  quarrel,  and  it  could  only 
have  been  with  one,  as  the  issue  proves."  [In 
the  entire  absence  of  reliable  knowledge  of  the 
cau*e  of  this  quarrel  the  tradition  embodied  in 
(lie  Targs.  of  Jerus.  and  Jon.  may  be  noted.  Ac- 
cording to  these  the  Egyptian  was  the  son  of  an 
Egyptian  who  had  Blain  an  Israelite  in  the  land 
of  Egypt  and  then  had  gone  in  to  his  wife.  She 
had  borne  the  child  among  the  Israelites,  being 
herself  of  the  tribe  of  Dan.  In  the  desert  this 
man  claimed  the  right  to  pitch  his  tent  with  the 
tribe  of  Dan,  and  the  right  being  resisted  by  a 
man  of  that  tribe,  they  took  the  case  before  the 
judge,  where  it  was  decided  against  the  Egyp- 
tian. On  coming  out  under  this  adverse  judg- 
ment, he  committed  his  offense. — F.  G.].  "Thus 
his  insolence  rose  to  blaspheming  "the  Name." 
This  expression:  the  Name,  absolutely,  raises 
the  name  of  Jehovah  above  all  names,  and  blas- 
phemy against  it  was  not  only  blasphemy  against 
the  God  of  Israel,  but  also  against  the  religion 
of  His  revelation,  against  the  covenant  with  Je- 
hovah, and  thus  against  the  holy  Source  of  all 
consecrations.  So  he  was  led  before  Moses. 
That  he  was  put  in  'ward  shows  that  the  mea- 
sure of  punishment  for  this  unheard  of  trans- 


gression had  not  yet  been  made  clear.  And  it 
had  not  been  settled  for  the  reason  that  he  did 
not  belong  to  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  in  the 
stricter  sense.  Hence  the  punishment  was  made 
known  to  Moses  by  an  especial  revelation  from 
Jehovah.  The  greatness  of  the  crime  is  shown 
by  the  following  particulars : 

"  1.  The  punishment  of  stoning  was  to  be  so- 
lemnly performed  by  the  whole  congregation, 
because  the  blasphemy  rested,  like  a  curse,  upon 
the  whole  congregation. 

"  2.  All  who  had  heard  the  blasphemy  must 
lay  their  hands  on  the  head  of  the  criminal  be- 
fore the  execution.  Until  this  expiation  they 
are  contaminated  with  a  complicity  in  guilt  (see 
ch.  v.  1),  which  they  must  discharge  from  them- 
selves upon  the  guilty  head."  [Keil  refers  to 
the  washing  of  hands  in  Deut.  xxi.  6  as  analo- 
gous. Knobel,  however,  considers  that  the  com- 
mand is  connected  with  Deut.  xvii.  7,  requiring 
the  witnesses  to  throw  the  first  stones.  They 
were  in  either  case  thus  to  make  themselves  re- 
sponsible for  the  truth  of  the  accusation. — F.  G.]. 

"3.  The  greatness  of  the  guilt  is  in  the  first 
place  to  be  compared  with  the  lesser  guilt  of  a 
man's  cursing  his  God,  i.  e.,  his  Elohim  in  His 
peculiar  relation  to  him,  wherein  he  might  mean, 
e.  g.  that  this  Elohim  had  done  him  wrong.    This 

77p  may  have  very  different  degrees,  even  to 
speaking  evil ;  therefore  he  shall  bear  his  sin  : 
in  the  first  place,  his  evil  conscience;  then  his 
sentence  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  theo- 
cratic tribunal."  [As  this  particular  offender 
was  an  Egyptian,  and  as  the  law  (ver.  16)  in- 
cludes the  stranger  generally,  many  commen- 
tators have  understood  the  expression  his  God 
to  mean  the  Deity  whom  he  is  accustomed  to 
worship.  In  confirmation  of  this  it  is  urged  that 
penalty  for  him  that  curseth  his  God  in  ver. 
15  is  only  that  he  shall  bear  his  sin  ;  while  in 
ver.  16  he  that  blasphemeth  (or  revileth,  a 
feebler  expression  than  curseth)  the  name  of 
the  LORD,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death. 
For  the  last  reason,  others  have  maintained  that 

Q'iwX  does  not  here  signify  God  at  all,  but  hu- 
man magistrates.  The  reason,  however,  is  of 
little  weight.  In  ver.  15  is  given  the  general  law 
with  the  indefinite  penalty;  in  ver.  16  it  is  re- 
peated for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  with  definite- 
ness  in  regard  to  every  particular,  the  sin,  the 
punishment,  the  executioners,  and  the  applica- 
tion of  the  law  to  the  stranger  as  well  as  the  na- 
tive. The  reference  of  ver.  15  to  the  gods  of 
the  strangers  is  peculiarly  unfortunate.  It  can- 
not be  imagined  that  the  law  of  Jehovah  should 
thus  provide  for  the  honor  of  those  false  gods 
whom  it  aims  to  bring  into  contempt. — F.  G.]. 

"4.  This  punishment  of  stoning  should  apply 
to  the  strang-r  as  well  as  to  the  Israelite,  be- 
cause in  the  first  place,  he  entered  the  congre- 
gation of  Israel  as  a  blasphemer  of  its  name-; 
and  in  the  second  place,  proved  thereby  that  he 
did  not  do  it  unconsciously,  but  had  an  idea  of 
the  signification  of  this  name. 

"  5.  If  then  the  object  of  the  ordinances  for 
punishment  next  following  was  that  the  penal 
law  of  the  Israelites  should  also  apply  to  the 
stranger  who  sojourned   in    their   community; 


184 


LEVITICUS. 


yet  the  immediately  following  degrees  of  punish- 
ment form  a  scale  which  gives  one  a  clear  idea 
of  the  greatness  of  the  blasphemer's  crime  against 
Majesty.  The  death  penalty  for  the  murderer 
forms  a  basis.  Behind  this  follow  the  various 
degrees,  severe  according  to  the  law  of  compen- 
sation (Ex.  xxi.  23),  but  yet  the  blasphemer 
stands  pre-eminent,  far  above  the  murderer. 
The  principal  reason  for  this  arrangement  lies 
indeed  in  this :  that  the  capital  punishment  of 
the  Egyptian  might  easily  excite  a  fanatical  con- 
tempt and  misusage  of  the  stranger ;  therefore 
it  is  here  most  fittingly  made  prominent  that  the 
Jews  [Israelites]  and  strangers,  stand  under  the 
same  law,  and  that  the  murdering  of  the  stranger 
must  also  be  punished  with  death.  With  the 
elevation  and  hallowing  of  the  punishment  here 
appointed  above  all  partisan  fanaticism,  it  be- 
came self-evident  that  the  same  punishment  must 
fall  upon  the  Jews  [Israelites].  How  proper  is 
it  that  the  name  of  Jehovah  should  be  again  in- 
serted for  the  purpose  that  the  stranger  might 
have  equal  administration  of  justice  with  the 
Jew  [Israelite].  Manifold  misunderstanding 
has  attached  itself  to  this  legislation.  The  Jew- 
ish misinterpretation  of  2p_l  (in  the  sense  of 
to  name,  instead  of  to  revile,  to  blaspheme)  has  had 
for  its  consequence  the  Jewish  superstition  that 
man  may  not  pronounce  the  name  of  Jehovah, 
and  the  after  effect  no  less  that  in  the  LXX.  the 
name  Kvptoc  is  in  the  place  of  Jehovah,  and  also 
the  placing  of  the  name  Lord  in  the  German  Bi- 
ble "  [and  in  the  English,  but  here  distinguished 
by  small  capital  letters — E.G.],  "  also  indirectly 
that  the  name  Jehovah  is  now  translated  with 
the  Jews  :   the  Eternal. 

"  The  Mediaeval  misinterpretation  drew  over 
into  the  New  Testament  time  the  penal  justice 
touching  it,  and  the  reflection  thereof  still  shows 
itself  in  the  history  of  the  Church  of  Geneva. 
The  mention  of  the  mother  of  the  blasphemer, 
Shelomith  (the  peaceable),  daughter  of  Dibri 
(my  word),  of  the  tribe  of  Dan  appears  to  be 
only  a  mark  of  definite  remembrance.  A  com- 
munity which  suffers  the  reviling  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  their  community  without  reaction,  is  mo- 
rally fallen  to  pieces.  This  holds  good  also  of 
the  religious  community.  The  reaction  of  the 
theocracy  could  not  and  should  not  transplant 
itself  into  the  Church  ;  but  since  it  was  outstrip- 
ped by  the  middle  ages,  there  has  come  in  more 
recent  time,  over  against  this  extreme,  a  fearful 
relaxation,  which  misses  the  dynamic  reaction 
against  the  impudent  and  the  blasphemers  of 
the  principle  of  the  community." 

This  chapter  is  founded  upon  the  fact  that 
among  the  Hebrews  the  child  followed  the  con- 
dition of  the  father  and  not  of  the  mother.  It  is 
probably  only  one  of  a  multitude  of  instances  of 
children  born  in  Egypt  of  parentage  of  different 
nations,  and  many  of  the  "mixed  multitude" 
who  followed  the  Israelites  may  have  had  Isra- 
elitish  mothers.  The  doubt  arising  as  to  the 
punishment  of  a  blasphemer  who  was  not  one 
of  the  covenant  people,  led  to  Moses'  asking  for 
Divine  direction.  In  answer,  not  only  this  par- 
ticular case  is  settled,  but  the  Hebrew  law  gene- 
rally is  made  applicable  to  the  sojourner.  In 
connection  with  the  penalty  for  killing  cattle  is 


announced  in  express  terms  (vers.  18,  21),  that 
which  had  only  been  implied  before  (Ex.  xxi. 
33-3b).  The  law  for  the  punishment  of  blas- 
phemy in  ver.  16  is  perfectly  clear  ;  it  was  from 
a  wrong  conception  of  the  fact,  not  of  the  law, 
that  the  Jews  Btoned  St.  Stephen,  and  would 
gladly  have  stoned  our  Lord  Himself.  The  ca- 
pital punishment  of  the  murderer  in  vers.  17,  21, 
is  not  to  be  considered  as  a  part  simply  of  the 
lex  talionis,  but  rather  as  a  positive  Divine  com- 
mand given  in  accordance  with  Gen.  ix.  6.  The 
lex  talionis  on  the  other  hand,  of  vers.  19,  20,  is 
permissive  and  restrictive,  like  so  much  else  in 
the  Mosaic  legislation.  The  fundamental  prin- 
ciple which  should  govern  man's  conduct  tow- 
ards his  neighbor  is  given  in  xix.  18;  but  as  the 
people  were  so  little  able  to  bear  this,  the  an- 
cient indulgence  of  unlimited  revenge  is  re- 
stricted at  least  to  the  equivalent  of  the  injury 
suffered.  After  the  announcement  of  these  gen- 
eral laws,  the  people  carried  into  execution  the 
sentence  pronounced  upon  the  Egyptian  blas- 
phemer. 

DOCTRINAL  AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  The  fundamental  moral  laws  apply  equally 
to  all  mankind.  No  one  can  be  exempted  from 
them  on  the  ground  that  he  is  not  in  covenant 
relation  with  their  author,  or  does  not  acknow- 
ledge himself  to  be  bound  by  them. 

II.  Blasphemy  against  God  is  a  crime  of  the 
deepest  character,  and  demands  the  severest 
punishment. 

III.  Exact  justice  demands  the  restoration  to 
one's  neighbor  of  the  precise  equivalent  of  any 
harm  done  to  him,  and  in  case  this  is  a  personal 
injury,  of  a  corresponding  injury  to  the  offender. 
The  law  of  love  comes  in  to  forbid  the  exaction 
of  this  penalty  on  the  part  of  him  who  is  injured; 
but  the  same  law  should  lead  the  offender  to  re- 
store in  more  ample  measure. 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Lange  :  "  Blasphemy  against  the  name  of  Je- 
hovah as  the  great  mortal  offence  in  Israel.  Cul- 
mination of  the  revelation  of  salvation  in  Chris- 
tianity ;  wherefore  here  especially  the  death 
penalty  must  fall  away.  The  accusation  of 
Christ,  that  He  blasphemed  God.  The  blas- 
phemy in  the  New  Testament  era,  above  all 
others,  a  blasphemy  against  the  grace  of  God  in 
Christ.  The  name  of  Jehovah  is  the  witness  of 
His  covenant  truth. — The  fearful  decree  of  death 
which  lies  in  this  blasphemy  itself." 

The  evil  of  marriages  with  the  ungodly  is  here 
apparent;  also  the  influence  of  an  ungodly  fa- 
ther upon  the  life  and  character  of  his  child. 
The  law  requires  every  accusation  to  be  sub- 
stantiated by  the  most  solemn  act  of  the  accu- 
ser;  no  one  has  the  right  to  bring  a  charge 
against  another  to  the  truth  of  which  he  cannot 
positively  testify,  and  which  he  is  not  prepared 
to  support  in  such  wise  that,  if  untrue,  guilt 
must  recoil  on  his  own  head.  The  equality  of 
all  men  before  the  law  of  God  is  here,  as  every, 
where  in  the  law,  made  very  prominent.  In  the 
sufferance  of  the  law  of  revenge,  we  see  that 
God's  will  is  not  always  to  be  known  by  what 


CHAP.  XXV.  1-55.  185 


He  may  permit  to  sinful  man ;  He  suffers  many 
things  "  for  the  hardness  of  their  hearts."  All 
these  commands,  and  all  commands  given  toman 
rest  upon  the  ultimate  ground  I  am  the  LORD 
your  God. 


But  little  is  said  in  the  New  Testament  of 
blasphemy,  God's  displeasure  at  this  sin  having 
been  expressed  so  plainly  in  the  Old,  and  His 
will  remaining  always  unalterably  the  same. 


FOURTH   SECTION. 

Of  the  Sabbatical  and  Jubilee  Years. 

"Tlie  keeping  holy  of  the  hallo-wed  territory,  the  holy  land,  by  the  Sabbatical  year  ;  of  the  consecrated 
inheritance  by  the  Jubilee  year,  and  thus  also  of  those  who  had  become  impoverished,  the  Israel- 
ites who  had  fallen  into  servitude;  the  keeping  holy  of  the  outward  appearance  of  the  holy  land 
(streets  and  ways) ;  of  the  public  Sabbath  feast  and  of  the  Sanctuary  of  the  religion  of  the  land. 
Ch.  xxv.  i — xxvi.  2." — Lange. 

Chapter  XXV.  1-55. 

1,  2  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  in  mount  Sinai,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  When  ye  come  into  the  land  which  I  give  you, 

3  then  shall  the  laud  keep  a  sabbath  unto  the  Lord.  Six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy 
field,  and  six  years  thou  shalt  prune  thy  vineyard  [fruit  garden1],  and  gather  in 

4  the  fruit  thereof;  but  in  the  seventh  year  shall  be  a  sabbath  of  rest  unto  the  land, 
a  sabbath  for  the  Lord  :  thou  shalt  neither  sow  thy  field,  nor  prune  thy  vineyard 

5  [fruit  garden1].  2That  which  groweth  of  its  own  accord  of  thy  harvest  thou  shalt 
not  reap,  neither  gather  the  grapes  of  thy  vine  undressed  :3  for  it  is  a  year  of  rest 

6  unto  the  land.  And  the  sabbath  of  the  land  shall  be  meat  for  you  ;  for  thee,  and 
for  thy  servant,*  and  for  thy  maid,  and  for  thy  hired  servant,  and  for  thy  stranger 

7  that  sojourneth  with  thee,  and  for  thy  cattle,  and  for  the  beasts  [animals6]  that  are 
in  thy  land,  shall  all  the  increase  thereof  be  meat. 

8  Aud  thou  shalt  number  seven  sabbaths6  of  years  unto  thee,  seven  times  seven 
years ;  and  the  space  of  the  seven  sabbaths6  of  years  shall  be  unto  thee  forty  and 

9  nine  years.  Then  shalt  thou  cause  the  trumpet  of  the  jubile  to  sound  [cause  the 
sound  of  the  cornet  to  go  through  the  land'']  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh 
month,  in  the  day  of  atonement  shall  ye   make  the  trumpet  sound  throughout 

10  all  your  laud.  And  ye  shall  hallow  the  fiftieth  year,  and  proclaim  liberty 
throughout  all  the  land  unto  all  the  inhabitants  thereof:  it  shall  be  a  jubile8 
unto  you;    and  ye  shall  return  every  man   unto  his  possession,   and   ye  shall 

TEXTUAL  AND   GRAMMATICAL. 
1  Vers.  3,  4.  013-    See  Textual  Note  •  on  xix.  10. 
s  Ver.  5.  Tlie  Sam.,  LXX.  and  Syr.  prefix  the  conjunction. 
3  Vers.  5, 11.  "VTJ  means  primarily  the  separated  (see  Gen.  xlix.  26 ;  Dent,  xxxiii.  16),  then  the  consecrated.    Except  in 

the  passages  referred  to,  and  in  this  chap  ,  it  is  always  used  of  the  Nazarite.  It  is  applied  to  the  vine  either  as  for  this  year 
consecrated,  so  LXX.  ayuio>aTos  a-ov ;  or  bj  a  figure  of  speech,  thy  Kazarile  vine,  as  having  its  branches  unpruoed  like  the 
unshorn  lock-"  of  tlie  Naznritc.  The  latter  is  generally  preferred  by  the  commentators.  See  Keil  who  refers  to  the  Latin 
Hindis  coma,  Tlbull.  i.  7,  34;  Propert.  ii.  15,  12.    Ten  MSS  ,  the  Syr.  and  Vulg.  read  the  word  in  Uie  plural. 

*  Ver.  0.  The  S:im.  and  Syr.  read  this  and  the  three  following  words  in  the  plural. 
5  Ver.  V.  rrnSl.    See  Textual  Note  «  on  xi.  2. 

•  Ver.  8.  Sabbath  is  used  here  as  in  xxiii.  15  (see  note  there)  rather  in  a  figurative  way  than  with  the  definite  sense  of 
week*.  ■ 

'  Ver.  3.  The  word  131'—  Jubile  of  ver.  10  does  not  occur  in  this  verse,  and  there  is  no  occasion  for  its  insertion.    The 

ni'lin   "131*1^  >3  ,he  loU(1  sound,  clangor,  of  an  instrument  usually  translated  trumpet  in  the  A.  T,  but  occasionally  (1 

Chron.  xv.  2S;  2  Cliron.  xv.  14;  Ps.  xcviii.  6,  etc.)  more  correctly  cornet  It  was  either  the  horn  of  an  animal  (according 
to  the  Mishna,  of  chamois  or  wild  ^.oat),  ur  maue  of  metal  in  the  fashion  of  a  horn.  The  LXX.  renoera  adAniyt,  tbe  Vulg. 
buccina.  L    .  . 

e  Vers.  10,  11,  12,  13,  etc.     72V   is  translated  throughout  this  chapter  and  ch.  xxvii  ,  jubile.    So  also  Num.  xxxvi.  4. 

In  Ex.  xix.  13  it  is  rendered  trump  t  (tnarg.  cornet),  and  in  the  orly  other  places  where  it  occurs.  Josh,  vi.  4.  5,  G,  8,  13, 
hornt.    Outside  of  the  Bible  the  wold  ia  always  spelt  juh,lie,  but  being  here  speltjuoile,  CUrk  considers  that  it  was  ' 
to  be  pronounced  ns  a  dissyllable,  making  a  close  hint  iti"ii  of  the  Ileb.  word.     Authorities  differ  as  to  its  sense  etymologi- 
cally.     See  the  •  ubj  ct  discussed  in  llocbart,  Hicroz.  I.  c.  43  (vol.  I.,  pp.  463-466  ed.  Risen.),  an!   Oosen.  Thej.  «.  o.      I  he 
LXX.  renders  a^eo-is  with  relation  to  what  was  to  be  done  iu  this  year  rather  than  as  a  translation  of  the  Heb.  word. 

27 


186  LEVITICUS. 


11  return  every  man  unto  his  family.  A  jubile"  shall  that  fiftieth  year  be  unto  you  : 
ye  shall  not  sow,  neither  reap  that  which  groweth  of  itself  in  it,  nor  gather  the 

12  grapes  in  it  of  thy  vine  undressed.3  For  it  is  the  jubile;8  it  shall  be  holy  unto 
you  :  ye  shall  eat  the  increase  thereof  out  of  the  field. 

13  In    the   year  of  this  jubile8  ye  shall  return  every  man  unto   his  possession. 

14  And  if  thou  sell'  ought  unto  thy  neighbor,  or  buyest  ought  of  thy  neighbor's  hand, 

15  ye  shall  not  oppress  [overreach10]  one  another :  according  to  the  number  of  years 
after  the  jubile8  thou  shalt  buy  of  thy  neighbor,  and  according  unto  the  number 

16  of  years  of  the  fruits  he  shall  sell  unto  thee :  according  to  the  multitude  of  years 
thou  shalt  increase  the  price  thereof,  and  according  to  the  fewness  of  years  thou 
shalt  diminish  the  price  of  it :  for  according  to  the  number  of  the  years  of  the  fruits 

17  doth  he  sell  unto  thee.  Ye  shall  not  therefore  oppress  [overreach10]  one  another; 
but  thou  shalt  fear  thy  God:  for  I  am  the  Lord  your  God. 

18  Wherefore  ye  shall  do  my  statutes  and  keep  my  judgments,  and  do  them;  and 

19  ye  shall  dwell  in  the  land  in  safety.     And  the  land  shall  yield   her  fruit,  and  ye 

20  shall  eat  your  fill,  and  dwell  therein  in  safety.  And  if  ye  shall  say,  What  shall 
we  eat  the  seventh  year ?  behold,  we  shall  not  sow,  nor  gather   in  our  increase: 

21  then  I  will  command  my  blessing  upon  you  in  the  sixth  year,  and  it  shall  bring 

22  forth  fruit  for  three  years.  And  ye  shall  sow  the  eighth  year,  and  eat  yet  of  old 
fruit  until  the  ninth  year ;  until  her  fruits  come  in  ye  shall  eat  of  the  old  store. 

23  The  land  shall  not  be  sold  for  ever  :u  for  the  land  is  mine  ;  for  ye  are  strangers 

24  and  sojourners  with  me.     And  in  all  the  land  of  your  possession  ye  shall  grant  a 

25  redemption  for  the  land.  If  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor,  and  hath  sold  away  some 
of  his  possession,  and  if  any  of  his  kin  come  to  redeem  it,  then  shall  he  redeem  that 

26  which  his  brother  sold.     And  if  the  man  have  none  to  redeem  it,  and  himself  be 

27  [has  become12]  able  to  redeem  it ;  then  let  him  count  the  years  of  the  sale  thereof, 
and  restore  the  overplus  unto  the  man  to  whom  he  sold  it :  that  he  may  return 

28  unto  his  possession.  But  if  he  be  not  able  to  restore  it  to  him,  then  that  which  is 
sold  shall  remain  in  the  hand  of  him  that  hath  bought  it  until  the  year  of  jubile:8 
and  in  the  jubile8  it  shall  go  out,  and  he  shall  return  unto  his  possession. 

29  And  if  a  man  sell  a  dwelling  house  in  a  walled  city,  then  he  may  redeem  it 
within  a  whole  year  after  it  is  sold  ;  within  a  full  year  [a  term  of  days13]  may  he 

30  redeem  it.  And  if  it  be  not  redeemed  with  the  space  of  a  full  year,  then  the  house 
that  is  in  the  walled  city  shall  be  established  for  ever  to  him14  that  bought  it 

31  throughout  his  generations:  it  shall  not  go  out  in  the  jubile.8  But  the  houses  of 
the  villages  which  have  no  wall  round  about  them  shall  be  counted15  as  the  fields 
of  the  country  :  they  may  be  redeemed,  and  they  shall  go  out  in  the  jubile.8 

32  Notwithstanding  [But  concerning16]  the  cities  of  the  Levites,  and  [omit  and]  the 

33  houses  of  the  cities  of  their  possession,  may  the  Levites  redeem  at  any  time.  And 
if  a  man  purchase  of  the  Levites,"  then  the  house  that  was  sold,  and  [in18]  the  city 

Josephus  (Ant.  ITT.  12,  3)  uses  the  Heb.  word  i<u/3»}Aof,  which  he  explains  as  meaning  liberty,  e\rv$epiav  Be  cnjiiaiVei  rovvona. 
The  Vulg.  liuajubileue.     In  Ezek.  xlvi.  17  it  is  called   "VlllD   t\i\S=the  year  of  liberty,  from  which  Josephus  probably 

derived  his  interpretation.    This  accords  well  with  the  context  in  ver.  11,  and  also  with  the  derivation  from  7y=to  flaw 

freely. 

»  Ver.  14.  The  Heb.  has  the  verb  in  the  plural ;  but  the  Sam.  has  the  sing,  in  accordance  with  the  sing,  pronouns  fol- 
lowing.   The  word  buy,  DJp,  i8  fnC  aba.,  aa  in  Gen.  xli.  43. 

'0  Ver.  14.  lj\n~?|t    The  verb  PIV  in  the  Hiph.  applies  especially  to  that  sort  of  civil  oppression  brought  about 

*-  TT 

by  fraud,  which  is  best,  expressed  in  English  by  the  word  overreach. 

»  Ver.  23.  TITOi?,  lit./er  cutting  otf  (as  in  marg.  A.  V.),  viz.  from  all  hope  of  redemption.  In  modern  phrase,  in  per- 
petuity. 

»  Ver.  26.  The  marg.  his  hand  hath  attained  and  found  sufficiency  exactly  renders  the  Heb. ;  but  the  text  of  the  A.  V.  is 
a  sufficiently  good  translation  except  in  failing  to  bring  out  the  idea  that  tho  ability  to  redeem  has  come  about  since  the 
Bale  took  place.  The  Jewish  interpretation  was  accordingly  correct,  that  the  right  of  redemption  annul  1  only  accrue  in 
ruse  the  ability  to  re-purchase  was  gained  after  the  sale  had  taken  place;  a  merely  voluntary  sale  must  hold  until  the  Jubi- 
lee year.  . 

W  Ver.  29.    lrPNJ   iTnfl    D'D\   MX.  day t  shall  its  redemption  be,  i.  e.  the  right  of  redemption  shall  continue  for  a 

definite  time  and  no  lunger,  which  time  has  been  explained  in  the  previous  clause  t"  be  a  year;  it  is  better,  however,  to 
let  the  trauslutlun  follow  the  Hub.  than  to  paraphrase  so  much  as  has  been  doue  in  the  A.  V. 

»  Ver.  30.  Tli-  k'ri   lS  for  the  text  X^   '8  "'80  'he  reading  of  the  Sam.  and  of  thirteen  MSS. 

16  Ver.  31.   3tVrV   is  Slug.    The  Sam  ,  LXX.  and  Syr.  have  the  plural. 
..  T .. 

i«  Ver.  32.  On  this  use  of  the  [.article  1  see  Nordheimi-r's  Jtcb.  Gr.  g  10H3,  6,  c,  h.     It  is  evident  that  there  is  nothing 

iiaid    bcui  th  ■  redemption  of  the  cities,  which  the  fi.rm  of  the  A.  V.  wou.d  seem  to  imply,  but  only  if  the  bouses  in  them. 

•-  '•  -  1 1    T'  .  r    >■  , i.  ,|m  ,.r-iiv  of  nnfnlon  as  to  the  nieauiug  of  this  clause.     The  text  of  tho  A.  V.  id  supported  by 


CHAP.  XXV.  1-55.  187 


of  his  possession,  shall  go  out  in  the  year  of  jubile:8  for  the  houses  of  the  cities  of 

34  the  Levites  are  their  possession  among  the  children  of  Israel.  But  the  field  of  the 
suburbs  of  their  cities  may  not  be  sold ;  for  it  is  their  perpetual  possession. 

35  And  if  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor,  and  fallen  in  decay  with  thee ;  then  thou 
shalt  relieve  him :  yea,  though  he  be  a  stranger  [poor,  and  his  hand  trembles  by 
thee,  thou  shalt  hold  him  upwa  stranger19],  or  a  sojourner ;  that  he  may  live20 

36  with  thee.     Take  thou  no  usury  of  him,  or  increase :  but  fear  thy  God ;  that  thy 

37  brother  may  live  with  thee.     Thou  shalt  not  give  him  thy  money  upon  usury,  nor 

38  lend  him  thy  victuals  for  increase.  I  am  the  Lord  your  God,  which  brought  you 
forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  to  give  you  the  land  of  Canaan,  arid  to  be  your  God. 

39  And  if  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by  thee  be  waxen  poor,  and  be  sold  unto  thee  ; 

40  thou  shalt  not  compel  him  to  serve  as  a  bondservant :  but  as  an  hired  servant,  and 
as  a  sojourner,  he  shall  be  with  thee,  and  shall  serve  thee  unto  the  year  of  jubile:3 

41  and  then  shall  he  depart  from  thee,  both  he  and  his  children  with  him,  and  shall 
return  unto  his  own  family,  and  unto  the  possession  of  his  fathers  shall  he  return. 

42  For  they  are  mv  servants,  which  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt:  they 

43  shall  not  be  sold  as  bondmen.     Thou  shalt  not  rule  over  him  with  rigor ;  but  shalt 

44  fear  thy  God.  Both  thy  bondmen,  and  thy  bondmaids,  which  thou  shalt  have, 
shall  be"  of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you  ;  of  them  shall  ye  buy  bondmen 

45  and  bondmaids.  Moreover  of  the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among 
you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you,  which  they  begat 

46  in  your  land :  and  they  shall  be  your  possession.  And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an 
inheritance  for  your  children  after  you,  to  inherit  them  for  a  possession ;  they  shall 
be  your  bondmen  for  ever :  but  over  your  brethren  the  children  of  Israel,  ye  shall 
not  rule  one  over  another  with  rigor. 

47  And  if  a  sojourner  or  stranger  wax  rich  by  thee,  and  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by 
him  wax  poor,  and  sell  himself  unto  the  stranger  or21  sojourner  by  thee,  or  to  the  stock 

48  of  the  stranger's  family  :  after  that  he  is  sold  he  may  be  redeemed  again ;  one  of  his 

49  brethren  may  redeem  him  ;  either  his  uncle,  or  his  uncle's  son,  may  redeem  him, 
or  any  that  is  nigh  of  kin22  unto  him  of  his  family  may  redeem  him  ;  or  if  he  be 

50  able,  he  may  redeem  himself.  And  he  shall  reckon  with  him  that  bought  him 
from  the  year  that  he  was  sold  to  him  unto  the  year  of  jubile  :8  and  the  price  of 
his  sale  shall  be  according  unto  the  number  of  years,  according  to  the  time  of  an 

51  hired  servant  shall  it  be  with  him.  If  there  be  yet  many  years  behind,  according 
unto  them  he  shall  give  again  the  price  of  his  redemption  out  of  the  money  that 

52  he  was  bought  for.  And  if  there  remain  but  few  years  unto  the  year  of  jubile,8 
then  he  shall  count  with  him,  and  according  unto  his  years  shall  he  give  him  again 

53  the  price  of  his  redemption.     And  as  a  yearly  hired  servant  shall  he  be  with  him  : 

54  and  the  other  shall  not  rule  with  rigor  over  him  iu  thy  sight.  And  if  he  be  not 
redeemed  in  these  years  [by  these  means"],  then  he  shall  go  out  in  the  year  of  jubi- 

the  LXX.  and  by  the  Targuma,  and  ia  defended  by  Keil.    A  difficulty  arises  from  the  use  of  the  word  7X T^redeem  ;  but 

Keil  maintains  on  the  authority  of  the  Rabbins,  that  this  is  used  in  the  sense  of  njp=<0  buy.     He  groundB  the  usage  on 

tIt 
the  fart  that  the  Levitict]  cities  were  originally  assigned  to  the  tribes  as  a  part  of  their  inheritance;  they  relinquished  the 
houses,  or  a  part  <•!  the  houses  in  them  (together  with  pasture  grounds)  to  the  Levites  tor  dw-  lhng-pla'  i  s.  When  therefore 
one  of  another  'rile-  pur.  based  of  a  Levite,  lie  was  in  tact  redeeming  the  inheritance  of  his  tribe.  So  Murphy.  On  theother 
hand,  the  reading:  r/one  of  the  Levita  redeems  a  lumxe  in  the  city  (according  to  the  niarg.  of  the  A.  V.),  is  preferred  by  Chirk 
following  Rusenmiilier,  De*  Wette.  Kranold,  rlerxheimer  and  others.     The  meauing  will  tb>  u  be,  that  if  a  Levite  haa  snld 

a  house  to  one  of  another  tribe,  and  another  Levite  redeem  it,  then  in  the  .Jubilee  year  it  mnBt  revert  to  ita  original    | 

sessor.  But  it  is  more  than  questionable  whether  the  Levites  had  any  such  general  right  of  redemption  on  behalf  of  their 
fell  w  Levites  as  this  would  suppose.  The  Yulg.  inserts  a  negative,  Si  redempta  (sc.  cedes)  non  ftterint,  and  ibis  is  sustained 
bv  Houbigant,  and  preferred  by  Woide,  Kwalrl,  Bunsen  and  Knobel.  It  is  adopted  by  L;tnge  in  the  translation  and  exege- 
sis; lint  it  is  a  Berious  objeetion  that  it  would  require  a  change  in  the  Ueb.  On  the  whole,  the  text  of  the  A.  V.  seems  heat 
sustained,  and  gives  the  clearest  sense. 

18  Ver.  33.  On  the  use  of  1  in  the  figure  Bendiadys  see  Gesen.  s.  v.  1,  b. 

19  Ver.  35.  The  particle  as  is  inserted  here  by  the  LXX.,  Yulg ,  Targums,  Luther,  etc,  and  is  recognized  as  to  he  sup- 
plied by  many  commentators,  as  Keii,  Clark  and  others.  So  also  Riggs.  On  the  other  hand  the  Syr.  gives  just  the  opposite 
sense  :  thou  shalt  not  hold  him  for  a  sojourner  or  foreigner;  but  he  shall  live  with  thee.  Others,  as  Lange,  adopt  the  sense 
expressed  in  the  A.  V. 

20  Ver.  35.  'Ill  according  to  Keil,  an  abbreviation  for  'fll   occurring  only  here. 

21  Ver.  47.  The  missing  conjunction  is  supplied  iu  ten  MSS.,  the  LXX.  and  Syr. 

22  Ver.  49.  See  Textual  Note  *  on  xviii.  6. 

23  Ver.  54.  The  Heh.  does  not  express  the  noun  at  all.  That  supplied  by  the  roarg.  of  the  A.  V.  ia  clearly  more  agree- 
able to  the  context  than  that  in  the  text.  So  Lange,  following  the  Sjr.  The  other  ancient  versions  do  not  supply  the 
ellipsis. 


188 


LEVITICUS. 


55  le,8  both  he,  and  his  children  with  him.  For  unto  me  the  children  of  Israel  are 
servants  ;  they  are  my  servants  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt :  I 
am  the  Lord  your  God. 

the  Sabbath-month,  and  the  Sabbath-year,  and 
lastly  to  a  great  Sabbath-period  of  years.  And 
all  these  institutions  were  associated  with  ideas 
admirably  calculated  to  foster  both  a  sense  of 
dignity  and  humility,  both  zeal  in  practical  pur- 
suits and  spiritual  elevation,  both  prudeuce  and 
charity."   Kalisch. 

'•  The  fundamental  thought  is:  Jehovah  is  the 
Lord  of  the  land  of  Jehovah,  with  all  its  bless- 
ings, with  its  soil  and  its  harvests,  with  its  inhe- 
ritances and  its  dwellings,  with  its  rich  and  its 
poor,  with  its  free  and  its  slaves,  its  roads  and 
its  bye-ways,  its  holy  seasons,  the  Sabbaih  days 
and  its  central  holy  place,  the  Tabernacle." 
Lange. 

Vers.  1-7.  In  mount  Sinai  clearly  means 
in  the  region  about  the  mountain,  as  in  vii.  38; 
xxvi.  46;  xxvii.  34,  etc.  "  Mount  Sinai  is  em- 
phasized to  allow  the  immediately  following  or- 
dinance to  come  into  prominence  as  a  prophecy 
of  the  distant  future."  Lange.  Neither  the  Sab- 
batical nor  the  Jubilee  year  were  to  be  observed 
until  the  settlement  of  the  people  in  the  premised 
land.  On  ver.  4  Lange  quotes  Keil  as  follows  : 
"  The  omission  of  sowing  and  reaping  presup- 
posed that  the  Sabbatical  year  commenced  with 
the  civil  year,  in  the  autumn  of  the  sixth  year 
of  labor,  and  not  with  the  ecclesiastical  year,  on 
the  first  of  Abib  (Nisan),  and  that  it  lasted  till 
the  Autumn  of  the  seventh  year,  when  the  culti- 
vation of  the  land  would  commence  again  with 
the  preparation  of  the  ground  and  the  sowing  of 
the  seed  for  the  eighth  year;  and  with  this  the 
command  to  proclaim  the  jubilee  year  *on  the 
tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month  '  throughout  all 
the  land  (ver.  9),  and  the  calculation  in  vers.  21, 
22,  fully  agree."  On  the  expression  Sabbath 
Sabbathon  of  ver.  4,  see  Textual  Note  2  on  xxiii. 
3.  In  vers.  4-7  all  agricultural  labor  is  forbid- 
den for  the  Sabbatical  year.  Two  queslions 
arise:  how  were  the  wants  of  the  people  to  be 
provided  for  during  the  year?  and  how  was  the 
time  thus  freed  from  its  usual  employments  to 
be  spent?  In  regard  to  the  first,  reference  ia 
usually  made  to  the  great  productiveness  of  the 
land,  and  to  the  fact  that  there  would  be  a  con- 
siderable spontaneous  growth  of  grain,  while  the 
fruit  trees  and  the  vine  would  of  course  bear 
nearly  as  usual.  Greater  use  would  also  have 
been  made  of  animal  food  by  those  who  pos- 
sessed cattle,  or  were  able  to  purchase  it.  and 
the  uncropped  fields  would  have  allowed  of  the 
support  of  herds  and  flocks  in  unusual  numbers. 
These  facts  lessen  the  difficulty,  and  indeed  re- 
move it  altogether  for  the  wealthy  and  for  the 
poor  also  during  several  months  of  the  year;  all 
this  spontaneous  produce  was  common  property, 
and  might  be  gathered  by  any  one  for  immediate 
use  but  not  stored.  Undoubtedly  during  the 
time  of  the  ripening  of  the  various  cereals  there 
would  thus  be  abundant  provision  for  the  wants 
of  the  whole  population.  But  after  all,  the  main 
reliance  must  have  been  upon  the  stores  laid  up 
previously  in  view  of  the  coming  on  of  the  Sab- 
batical year,  and  this  is  pointed  out  in  vers.  20, 
21.     It  is  also  to   be  noticed  that   only  agricul- 


EXEGETICAL   AND   CPwITICAL. 

This  chapter,  with  the  first  two  verses  of  the 
following  one,  forms  another  Parashah.  or  proper 
lesson  of  the  law  ;  the  parallel  lesson  from  the 
prophets  is  Jer.  xxxii.  6-27,  concerning  Jere- 
miah's redemption  of  Hanameel's  field  in  Ana- 
thoth.  This  and  the  following  chapter,  which  is 
the  conclusion  of  the  book  proper,  form  a  single 
Divine  communication.  "  The  institution  of  the 
jubilee  years  corresponds  to  the  institution  of 
the  day  of  atonement  (ch.  xvi.).  Just  as  all  the 
sins  and  uncleannesses  of  the  whole  congrega- 
tion, which  had  remained  unatoned  for  and  un- 
cleansed  in  the  course  of  the  year,  were  to  be 
wiped  away  by  the  all-embracing  expiation  of 
the  yearly  recurring  day  of  atonement,  and  an 
undisturbed  relation  to  be  restored  between  Je- 
hovah and  His  people;  so,  by  the  appointment 
of  the  year  of  jubilee,  the  disturbance  and  con- 
fusion of  the  divinely  appointed  relations,  which 
had  been  introduced  in  the  course  of  time  through 
the  inconstancy  of  all  human  or  earthly  things, 
were  to  be  removed  by  the  appointment  of  the 
year  of  Jubilee,  and  the  kingdom  of  Israel  to  be 
brought  back  to  its  original  condition."  Keil. 
The  systematic  character  and  correspondence  of 
the  two  great  divisions  of  Leviticus  are  thus 
brought  into  view. 

The  institution  of  the  Sabbatical  year  occu- 
pies the  first  seven  verses,  and  that  of  the  year 
of  Jubilee,  with  its  effects  upon  rights  and  pro- 
perty, the  remainder  of  the  chapter.  The  latter 
may  be  subdivided  into  the  institution  itself 
(vers.  8-12);  the  legal  return  of  every  man  to 
his  own  land,  and  the  effect  of  this  on  contracts 
(vers.  13-34) ;  and  finally  the  emancipation  of 
the  Hebrew  slave  with  its  consequences  (vers. 
35-55).  "The  Sabbatical  year  and  the  year  of 
Jubilee  belong  to  that  great  Sabbatical  system 
which  runs  through  the  religious  observances  of 
the  law.  They  were  solemnly  connected  with 
the  sacred  Covenant."  Clark.  They  are  there- 
fore appropriately  placed  immediately  after  the 
"appointed  seasons"  of  the  previous  chapter; 
yet  they  are  also  somewhat  separated  from  these, 
as  "  they  were  distinguished  by  no  religious  ce- 
remonies, they  were  accompanied  by  no  act  of 
religious  worship.  There  were  no  sacrifices, 
nor  Holy  Convocations  belonging  to  them."  Al- 
though forming  a  part  of  the  Hebrew  ecclesias- 
tical system,  they  were  yet  chiefly  marked  in 
their  effects  by  their  civil  and  social  relations. 
As  the  whole  civil  polity  of  Israel  was  funda- 
mentally theocratic,  so  were  these  remarkable 
provisions  in  their  national  life  placed  upon  a 
religious  basis. 

"  There  are  perhaps  in  the  whole  ancient  world 
no  institutions  bearing  comparison  with  the  He- 
brew year  of  release  and  of  Jubilee,  either  in 
comprehensiveness  or  in  loftiness  of  principle. 
It  is  impossible  to  appreciate  too  highly  the 
wonderful  consistency  with  which  the  Sabbath 
was  made  the  foundation  of  a  grand  series  of 
celebrations  extending  from  the   Sabbath-day  to 


CHAP.  XXV.  1-55. 


189 


tural  labor  was  suspended,  and  that  the  com- 
merce of  the  cities  went  on  as  usual.  In  regard 
to  the  employment  of  the  time:  the  command  is 
given  in  Deut.  xxxi.  10-12,  that  at  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  in  this  yeir  the  law  should  be  read 
in  the  hearing  of  all  the  people,  including  not 
merely  the  men  who  were  alone  required  in  other 
years  to  assemble  at  the  feast,  but  also  the  wo- 
men and  children.  This  provision,  joined  with 
the  analogy  of  the  seventh  day,  shows  that  the 
leisure  of  the  Sabbatical  year  was  to  be  improved 
in  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  the  Divine  law,  and 
doubtless  in  renewing  family  ties  and  associa- 
tions. It  is  distinguisbe!  not  as  an  idle  year, 
but  as  a  year  of  intellectual  and  moral,  rather 
than  of  minual  occupation.  Other  passages  in 
the  law  on  this  subject  are  Ex.  xxiii.  10,  ll,  and 
Deut.  xv.  1-18.  The  latter  is  the  most  detailed 
of  a'l,  and  provides  for  the  release  in  that  year 
of  all  debts  due  from  Israelites,  and  of  all  Isra- 
elites in  bond  service.  The  Sabbatical  year 
was  doubtless  provided  for  the  sake  of  man 
and  its  bearing  upon  his  spiritual  welfare  ; 
yet  when  the  law  pronounces  (ver.  2)  the  land 
shall  keep  a  Sabbath  unto  the  LORD, 
we  are  forced  to  see  a  symbolical  significance  in 
the  very  rest  of  the  land  itself.  '•  The  earth 
was  to  be  saved  from  the  hand  of  man  exhaust- 
ing its  power  for  earthly  purposes  as  his  own 
properly,  and  to  enjoy  the  holy  rest  with  which 
God  had  blessed  the  earth  and  all  its  productions 
after  the  creation.  From  this,  Israel,  as  the  na- 
tion of  God,  was  to  learn,  on  the  one  hand,  that 
although  the  earth  was  created  for  man,  it  was 
not  merely  created  for  him  to  draw  out  its  pow- 
ers for  his  own  use,  but  also  to  be  holy  to  the 
Lord,  and  participate  in  His  blessed  rest;  and 
on  the  other  hand,  that  the  great  purpose  for 
which  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  existed,  did 
not  consist  in  the  uninterrupted  tilling  of  the 
earth,  connected  with  bitter  labor  in  the  sweat 
of  his  brow  (Gen.  iii.  17,  19),  but  in  the  peaceful 
enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  which  the 
Lord  their  God  had  given  them,  anil  would  give 
them  still  without  the  labor  of  their  hands,  if 
they  strove  to  keep  His  covenant  and  satisfy 
themselves  with  His  grace."  Keil.  The  law  of 
the  Sabbatical  year  was  not  to  come  into  opera- 
tion until  after  the  completion  of  the  conquest 
It  is  hardly  probable  that  it  was  actually  ob- 
served until  the  Captivity,  see  2  Chron.  xxxvi. 
21,  unless  possibly  a  few  times  in  the  very  be- 
ginning of  the  settlement  in  Canaan.  Later, 
"  there  are  found  several  historical  notices  which 
imply  its  observance.  The  Jews  were  exempted 
from  tribute  in  the  Sabbatical  year  by  Alexander 
the  Great  (Jos.  Ant.  xi.  8,6),  and  by  Julius 
Cassar  (i'6.  xiv.  10,  6).  The  inhabitants  of  Beth- 
sura  could  not  stand  out  when  besieged  by  An- 
tiochus  Epiphanes,  because  they  had  no  store  of 
provisions  owing  to  the  Sabbatical  year  (1  Mace. 
vi.  49),  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  suf- 
fered from  a  like  cause  when  they  were  besieged 
by  Herod  (Jos.  Ant.  xiv.  16,  2;  xv.  1,  2)." 
Clark.  Tacitus  also  mentions  the  Jewish  "  sev- 
enth year  given  to  indolence"  (Hist.  v.  2,  4), 
and  St.  Paul  (Gal.  iv.  10)  charges  the  Judaizers 
with  observing  years  as  well  as  days  and  mouths. 
Vers.  8-12.  The  institution  of  the  year  of  Ju- 
bilee.    The  present  chapter  contains  the  whole 


literature  of  the  Jubilee  year  to  be  found  in  the 
Pentateuch,  except  the  discussion  of  its  effect 
upon  fields  dedicated  to  the  Lord  in  xxvii.  16- 
2-5,  and  except  also  the  allusion  in  the  case  of 
the  daughters  of  Zelophehad,  Num.  xxxvi.  4. 
Lange:  "The  relation  of  the  last  Sabbatical 
year  to  the  Jubilee  year  itself  creates  a  special 
difficulty.  If  the  people  did  not  sow  or  reap 
during  two  years,  there  would  result  a  stoppage 
of  four  years."  [This  seems  to  overlook  the 
fact  that  the  Jubilee  was  proclaimed  on  the  10th 
Tisri,  when  the  whole  work  of  the  agricultural 
year  had  been  rounded  oat  and  completed,  so 
that  the  break  of  two  years,  serious  as  this  was, 
did  not  extend  either  forward  or  backward  in 
its  effects  beyond  those  years  themselves. — F. 
G.].  "  On  this  account  it  has  indeed  been  sup- 
posed that  the  49ih  year  itself  was  the  Jubilee 
year  (see  Keil,  p.  162  [Trans,  p.  458].  Art. 
Sabbath  and  Jobcljahr  in  Herzog's  Real  encyclo- 
padie)."  [This  view  was  first  advocated  by  R. 
Jehuda,  and  has  been  adopted  by  Scaliger,  Usher, 
Peiavius,  Rosenmiiller,  and  others,  and  hesita- 
tingly by  Clark  in  his  commentary.  It  is  en- 
tirely rejected  by  Keil  as  contradictory  to  the 
plain  language  of  the  text,  and  by  Clark  in  his 
Art.  Jubilee  in  Smith's  Bibl.  Diet.  The  text 
(vers.  8-11)  is  perfectly  plain,  usiug  the  same 
forms  of  language  as  in  regard  to  the  feast  of 
Pentecost  after  the  completion  of  the  seven  weeks, 
between  which  and  this  Pentecostal  year  there 
is  a  clear  analogy.  Notwithstanding  the  autho- 
rity of  the  critics  above  referred  to,  it  must  be 
considered  as  certain  that  the  Jubilee  fallowed 
the  seventh  Sabbatical  year,  and  that  thus  once 
in  every  half  century  two  fallow  years  were  to 
occur  together.  The  provisions  for  food  were 
the  same  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other:  no 
agricultural  labor  was  to  be  performed,  but  the 
spontaneous  productions  of  the  earth  were  the 
common  property  of  the  whole  population.  Large 
reliance  must  therefore  have  been  placed  upon 
food  previously  stored  and,  perhaps,  on  foreign 
commerce. —  F.  G.]  "  We  see  from  the  book  of 
Jeremiah  that  tins  feast  was  poorly  kept  in  Is- 
rael, not  on  account  of  apprehended  need,  but  in 
consequence  of  tho  hardening  effect  of  proprie- 
tary relations,  and  the  h  ird-heartedness  of  the 
powerful  and  great  (  Knobel,  p.  563.  Jer.  xxxiv. ). 
l!ul  the  year  uf  Jubilee  formed  the  culmination 
of  the  ideal  relations  of  Israel  which  the  law 
aimed  at  without  actually  reaching.  .  .  .  Itis 
most  full  of  significance  that  on  the  10th  of  the 
7th  mouth  (at  the  end  of  the  seven  Sabbatical 
years  on  the  great  day  of  Atonement,  without 
doubt  immediately  after  the  full  accomplishment 
of  the  propitiation)  the  trombone  was  to  sound 
through  all  the  land  to  announce  the  year  of  Ju- 
bilee as  a  year  of  freedom  (11YI),  the  highest 
feast  of  the  laborer,  and  of  nature,  the  redemp- 
tion of  lost  inheritances,  the  ransom  of  the  en- 
slaved, the  year  of  the  restoration  of  all  things 
( [sa.  lxi.).  The  instrument  of  the  announcement 
is  the  trombone,  the  horn  ("131C/),  the  sound  of 

which  73V  had  proclaimed  also  the  feast  of  the 
covenant  of  the  law."  After  the  solemn  quiet 
of  the  day  when  all  the  people  must  "  afflict  their 
souls,"  and  when  the  great  rites  of  the  annual 
propitiation  had  been  completed,  probably  at  the 


190 


LEVITICUS. 


time  of  the  evening  sacrifice,  the  sudden  burst 
of  sound  proclaiming  the  year  of  Jubilee  must  have 
been  peculiarly  impressive.  The  proclamation  of 
freedom  was  most  appropriate  just  after  the  great 
reconciliation  of  the  people  with  God  had  been 
symbolically  completed.  The  chief  allusions  to 
this  year  in  the  prophets  are  Isa.  lxi.  1,  2;  Jer. 
xxxii.  6-15;   Ezek.  vii.  12,  13;   xlvi.  16-18. 

Vers.  13-34.  In  the  year  of  Jubilee  every  man 
was  to  return  to  his  inherited  possession.     The 
principle  on  which  this  law  is  based  is  given  in 
ver.  23  :    The  land  was   the   absolute  possession 
of  Jehovah  alone;   He  had  allotted  it  to  the  fa- 
milies of  Israel  as  strangers  and  sojourners 
with  Him,  and  however  these   allotments  might 
be   temporarily  disturbed  in   the  exigencies  of 
life,    in   the  Jubilee  they  must  all  be   restored 
again.     Ver.  14.  Sell  aught  refers  only  to  land 
and  houses  in  the  country.     Personal  property 
(except  slaves)   was  not  affected  by  the  Jubilee 
as  debts  were  by  the  Sabbatical  year  (Deut.  xv. 
1-11).     The  price  of  the  laud  was  determined 
(vers.   15,  16)    by  the  value  of  the   harvests  re- 
maining until  the  Jubilee.     "In   the  valuation 
of  the  harvest  there  was  always  opportunity  for 
fraud  ;  therefore  the  earnest   warning  not  to  op- 
press  [overreach]    one's  neighbor."     Lange. 
Vers.  20-22  relate  in  terms  to  the  sabbaticalyear, 
but  only  in  regard  to  the  supply  of  food.     This 
is,  of  course,  equally  applicable  to   the  Jubilee 
year,  and   thus    both   cases   are  covered.     The 
question  arises  in  connection  with  the  latter,  but 
needs  also  to  be  answered  for  the  form-r,  and  is 
therefore  arranged  with  reference  to  that  as  the 
more    frequently    recurring.     The  verses  stand 
therefore  quite  in  their  proper  place;   if  placed, 
as  various  critics  would  have  them,  just  after 
ver.  7,  the  Jubilee  year  could  only  be  provided 
for  by  a  repetition.     Vers.  23-28.   Lange:  "The 
land  shall  not  be  sold   even  to   defeasance,  i,  e., 
comple  ely.     It  shall  also  not  be  sold  absolutely  ; 
the  form  is  not  an  hereditary  lease,  once  for  all, 
but  a  temporary   lease  for  a  course  of  years.— 
For  the  land  is  Mine.  Jehovah  says,  an  1  ye 
are  strangers  and  sojourners  -with  Me. — 
Therefore  tue  soil  throughout  the  whole  land  was 
placed  under  the  law  of  redemption.     Also  re- 
demption could  take  place  before  the  50ih  year 
if  the  nearest  Goel  or  redeemer  of  the  impover- 
ished man  stepped  in  and   bought  back  for  his 
benefit  that  which   had   been   alienated.     If  the 
redeemers  (relatives,  according  to  their  degrees 
of  relationship,  having  the  ability  and  the  will) 
failed,   then  the  case  was  conceivable  that  the 
impoverished  man  himself  might  come  into  the 
possession  of  means  before  the  50th  year,  and 
then  the  redemption  was  reserved  to  him  accord- 
ing to  the  usufruct  of  the  yet  remaining  years." 
If  neither   of  these   means  of  redemption  were 
availed  of,  then  the  law  of  reversion  absolutely 
and  without  consideration  came  into  play  in  the 
Jubilee  year.     There  could  never  be  injustice  in 
this,  as  all  purchases  had  been  made  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  the  law.     The  law,  if  thy  bro- 
ther be  waxen  poor,  throughout  presupposes 
that  no  Israelite  would   sell  his  inheritance  ex- 
cept under  the  pressure  of  poverty.     Comp.   1 
Kings  xxi.  3. 

Vers.  29-34.  The  alienation   and  redemption 
of  houses  (a)  of  the  people  generally,  vers.  29- 


31;  (b)  of  the  Levites,  vers.  32-34.     (a)  Lange: 
"A  dwelling-house    within  a   walled   city   could 
be  redeemed  within  the  space  of  the  first  year, 
but   not    afterwards.      The   law   could   not   be 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  more  fixed  relations 
of  cities  without  prejudice  to  justice  and  order. 
Tho  reason  certainly  is  not  that  the  houses  in 
the  cities  belonged  "  to  the  full  proprietorship 
of  their  possessors."     The  possessors  themselves 
wero  really  tenants  of  Jehovah."      [The  law  of 
redemption  relates   to  land,  and  is  based   upon 
the  original  division  of  the  land  among  the  fami- 
lies of  Israel.     In  cities   the  original  value  of 
the  land  constituted  but  a  small  part  of  the  value 
of  a  house;   the  rest  was  the  creation  of  human 
industry.     The  property  represented  by  the  ori- 
ginal value  of  the  land  is  recognized  in  the  right 
of  redemption  for  a  year,  which  also  concurred 
with  the  general  purpose  of  the  law  in  checking 
the    sale   of  real   estate;   but   beyond    this   the 
house  in  the  city  was  justly  treated   as   of  the 
nature  of  personal   property.     Calvin  also   ob- 
serves justly  that  there  was  not  the  same  objec- 
tion to  the  falling  of  city  houses  into  the  hands 
of  the  wealthy  as  of  those  in  the  country.     On 
the  one  hand,  the  expense  of  maintaining   them 
was  greater,  and  could  be  better  borne   by   the 
wealthy;  and  on  the  other,  the  possession  of  a 
house  was  not  at  all  as  necessary  to  a  poor  man 
in  the  city  as  in   the   country   where   he  could 
scarcely  otherwise  find   shelter. — F.  G.]     "  But 
the  houses  in  open  places  were  put,  as  an  appur- 
teuance  to  the  farm,  under  the   law  of  redemp- 
tion within  the  fiftieth  year,   or  of  reversion   at 
the  end  of  that  period."      (6)  See   the   Textual 
Notes  on  vers.  32,  33.     Lange,  in  his  translation 
and  exegesis  of  ver.  33,  follows  the  Vulgate,  and 
objects  to  the  view  of  Keil  as  too  subtle,  and  as 
inapplicable  to  the  clause:   and   the   City   of 
his  possession.     The  latter  objection  is  re- 
moved by  considering  this  as  a   henrtiad'/*,  and 
translating  in  the  city.   Lange  considers  that  the 
clause  "has  something  like  these  the  senses:  even 
houses  of  the  Levites  fall   back   again,   even   if 
they  were  the  whole   city.     Or   again:   only  by 
this  means  the  Levidcal  cities  remain  guaranteed 
as  such."     The   pasturage   of   the   Levites    was 
absolutely   inalienable,   even    temporarily    (ver. 
34),  and  the  reason   for   extending   the   law   of 
redemption  to  their  houses  in  the  cities   is   evi- 
dently that  they  had  no   other  inheritance,   and 
it  was  therefore  necessary  in  this   to   assimilate 
them  to  the  rest  of  the  people   that   they  might 
enjoy    the    same    safeguards   against    hopeless 
poverty    with    their    brethren.     This    provision 
applied  to  the  priests  also,  who  constituted  one 
family  of  the  Levites,  and  were  in  the  same  situ- 
ation as  their  brethren  in  regard  to  landed  pro- 
perty.    It  is  noticeable  on   the   one   hand   that 
this  is  the  only  mention  of  the  Levites   in   this 
book;  and  on  the  other,   that   the  provision   of 
cities  for  them   had   not   yet    been    announced. 
Both  facts  admit  of  the   easy   explanation   that 
the  whole  legislation  had  been  communicated  to 
Moses  in  the  Mount,  so  that  any  part  of  it  may 
presuppose   another;    but   that    he   was   to   an- 
nounce it  to  the  people  in  the  order  best  adapted 
to  their  needs.     The  Levites  are   not   therefore 
spoken  of  in  this  book,  except  thus  incidentally 
in  order  to  keep  them  distinct  from  the  priests; 


CHAP.  XXV.  1-55. 


191 


and  the  law  in  regard  to  the  redemption  of  their 
houses  in  their  cities  is  given  to  complete  the 
law  of  Jubilee  ;  but  the  assignment  of  the  cities 
themselves  is  reserved  to  the  directions  for  the 
division  of  the  land. 

Vers.  35-55.  The  emancipation  of  the  Hebrew 
slave  with  its  consequences.  The  main  subject 
is  still  the  law  of  Jubilee;  but  in  connection 
with  the  effect  of  this  upon  the  Hebrew  slave, 
the  treatment  of  the   poor   generally   is   spoken 

0f, And  if  thy  brother,  i.  e.   an  Israelite, 

be  waxen  poor,   lie  was  not  to  be  treated  as 
an  outcast,  but  with  the  consideration  shown  to 
a  resident  foreigner,  who   also   had   no   lauded 
possession.     Vers.  36,  37,  forbid  the   taking  of 
usury  of  him,  or  increase.     In  the  latter 
verse  this  is  applied  also  to   the  furnishing   of 
food.     It  is  entirely  clear  that  the  prohibition  is 
not  simply  of  what  is  now  commonly  called  usu- 
rious  interest,    but    of    any    interest    whatever. 
There  was  no   law  regulating  the  amount  of  in- 
terest;  no  interest  was  allowed  to  be  taken  of  a 
Hebrew  brother,  and  no  limitation  was  put  upon 
that  which  might  be  demanded   of  a  foreigner. 
Lange,  however,  considers  the  words  :  a  stran- 
ger or  a  sojourner  (ver.  35)  as  in  apposition 
with  the  pronoun  him,  and  taking  the  view  ex- 
pressed in  the  A.  V.,  says:   "  It  is  very  noticea- 
ble that  this  holds  good  also  of  the   foreigner." 
See  Textual   Note   19.     Lange  adds:   "Jehovah 
says  this,  the  great   Benefactor,   who  has  deli- 
vered His  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  and  purposes  to 
give  him  the  whole   land  of  Canaan,  in  order  to 
make   him,  through   thankfulness,   like-minded 
with  his  God."     (Ver.  38.)     Vers.  39-43.     He- 
brew servants  to   Hebrews.     The   law   provides 
that  such  servants  shall  not  be  treated  as   ordi- 
nary slaves  entirely  dependent  upon  the  will  of 
their  master,  but  rather  as  simply  under  a  con- 
tract, like  a  hired  servant.     In   Ex.   xxi.    1-4   it 
has  already  been  provided  that  the  term  of  ser- 
vitude for  the  Israelites  should  not   extend   be- 
yond six  years,  and  in  the  seventh   they  should 
go  out  free;  it  is  now  further  provided,   as  an 
almost  necessary  supplement  to  that  law,  that, 
whatever  the  number  of  years  he  might  chance 
to  have  served,  he  should  go  free  in  the  Jubilee 
when  the   land   of   his   inheritance  reverted   to 
him,  and  would  need  his  care.     "Through   this 
principle  slavery  was   completely  abolished,   so 
far  as  the  people   of  the   theocracy   were   con- 
eerned."   Oehler.     In    Ex.   the   freedom    of  his 
wife  and  children   is  also   assured,   unless  the 
wife  be  one  given  him  by  his  master,  and  there- 
fore his  slave.     In  that  case  the  wife  and   chiU 
dren  remained  the  master's,  and  the  same  quali- 
fication is  doubtless  to  be  understood  of  ver.  41 
here.     In  Ex.  xxi.  5,   6,   provision   is   made   for 
the  case  of  a  slave   who   preferred   to   continue 
with  his  master ;   it  would   have   been   unneces- 
sary at  any  rate  to  mention  this  unusual  excep- 
tion here;  but  probably  it  applied   only  to   the 
ordinary  release  in  the  seventh  year  of  service, 
and  was  not  intended  to  take  place   also   at   the 
Jubilee.     If  the  slave  freed  at  the  Jubilee  chose 
to  go  back  to  his  master,  he  could   of  course  do 
so,  but  could  only  devote   himself  to   perpetual 
servitude  after  another  six  years'  service.   Vers. 
42,43.  Lange:  "  The  Israelites  were  not  allowed 
to  become  men's  slaves,  because  they  were  God's 


slaves.  The  Jews  could  misinterpret  these  noble 
words  in  arrogance  in  opposition  to  the  heathen 
(Jno.  viii.) ;  but  Christian  industry  has  read 
them  too  little."  Vers.  44-46.  Heathen  slaves 
of  Hebrew  masters.  The  Israelites,  in  common 
with  all  nations  of  their  time,  were  permitted  to 
hold  heathen  slaves.  It  was  a  patriarchal  cus- 
tom of  long  standing,  and  the  supply  was  kept 
up  by  natural  descent,  by  purchase  from  for- 
eigners, and  by  captives  taken  in  war.  The 
people  were  not  yet  prepared  for  the  abrogation 
of  this,  and  in  consequeuce  the  Mosaic  law  per- 
mits its  continuance,  but  in  many  ways  mitigates 
its  rigor  (see  Ex.  xxi.  16,  21,  26,  27),  especially 
by  providing  that  the  slave  might  adopt  the  reli- 
gion of  his  master,  and  be  circumcised,  and  thus 
eutitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  a  Hebrew  servant 
(comp.  Ex.  xii.  44).  This  had  certainly  been 
done  with  all  the  slaves  of  Abraham,  and  proba- 
bly with  those  of  Isuac  and  Jacob.  It  is  likely 
that  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  Israelites 
of  the  time  of  Moses  were  the  descendants  of 
slaves  thus  manumitted.  Vers.  47-55.  Hebrew 
servants  to  foreign  masters.  By  this  addition 
all  possible  cases  of  servitude  are  covered. 
Lange:  "The  prohibition  of  oppressive  power 
against  an  Israelite  brother  occurs  again  ver. 
43,  and  again  ver.  46.  So  strongly  were  the 
Israelites  now  bound  to  charitableness  and  to 
the  fostering  of  freedom ;  so  strongly  also  was 
the  power  of  the  stranger  and  foreigner  coming 
into  Israel  limited  in  relation  to  heathen  en- 
croachments upon  the  Jewish  right  of  freedom. 
If  an  impoverished  Jew  sold  himself  or  his  house 
to  a  foreigner,  any  one  of  his  kindred  might  be- 
come his  redeemer,  the  brother,  tho  uncle,  the 
uncle's  son,  or  any  blood  relation  ;  also  he  might 
redeem  himself,  if  he  had  laid  by  enough  for  the 
purpose.     Everything  breathed  the  tendency  to 

fr lorn;  but  it  was  conditioned  by  law.     The 

price  of  the  redemption  was  fixed  according  to 
the  years  which  he  had  yet  to  serve  to  the  year 
of  Jubilee,  and  according  to  the  usual  wages. 
In  case  there  was  no  redemption,  he  was  set 
free  in  the  year  of  Jubilee.  At  the  close  occurs 
yet  once  more  the  solemn  sanction  of  the  law, 
ver.  55."  This  law  evidently  contemplates  the 
acquisition  of  wealth  by  foreigners  residing  in 
Israel,  and  their  living  in  undisturbed  prosper- 
ity. The  Hebrew  slave  of  a  Hebrew  was  released 
without  redemption  after  six  years  of  service, 
and  also  in  the  year  of  Jubilee  whenever  that 
might  occur  ;  but  apparently  the  law  of  Ex.  xxi. 
does  not  apply  to  foreign  masters,  and  here 
nothing  is  said  of  release,  except  by  redemption, 
until  the  Jubilee.  This  would  be  a  strong  in- 
ducement to  an  impoverished  Hebrew  to  sell 
himself  to  an  Israelite  rather  than  a  foreigner, 
and  concurs  with  the  general  tendency  of  the 
law  to  discourage  any  subjection  to  foreigners. 

Lange  connects  the  first  two  verses  of  the  fol- 
lowing chapter  with  this  section  as  is  done  in 
the  Jewish  Parashnh.  They  seem,  however,  to 
belong  to  the  general  conclusion  of  the  book 
contained  in  the  following  chapter. 

DOCTRINAL   AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  Lange  (under  Exegetical):  "The  chosen 
land,  seen  from  a  distance,  appears  as  a  paradi- 


192 


LEVITICUS. 


saical  world,  inexhaustible  in  fruitfulnes9.  .  .  . 
But  it  is  to  be  particularly  noticed  that  the  pre- 
scribed Sabbath  rest  of  the  land  forced  the  peo- 
ple back  again  to  the  inexhaustible  source  of 
food  in  the  breeding  of  cattle,  and  so  far  to  sim- 
ple Idyllic  relations  ;  the  breaking  the  hardness 
of  purchase  aud  property  relations  would  fur- 
ther the  return  of  Idyllic  simplicily,  soften  the 
differences  of  rank,  and  above  all,  avert  the  so- 
called  proletarian  relations,  and  glorify  Jehovah 
as  the  gentle  sovereign  Lord  and  manor  Lord 
of  the  families  of  Israel  joined  together  in  bro- 
therhood. By  this  also  comfort  was  brought  to 
the  cattle,  and  even  to  the  wild  animal.  In  later 
times  the  turbulent,  restless  pressing  on  of  in- 
dustry is  not  appeased  by  voluntary  or  legal 
times  of  rest  and  years  of  remission,  but  indeed 
by  commercial  crises,  civil  catastrophes  and 
extraordinary  helps  in  necessity  ;  but  the  proper 
ideas  or  ideal  of  the  Sabbatical  and  Jubilee  years 
have  not  yet  come  to  be  clearly  seen  in  the 
Christian  consciousness  of  the  time."  What  is 
noted  by  H.  Spencer  as  the  rythmic  flow  of  all 
things  in  the  universe  is  provided  for  in  regard 
to  human  activity  in  this  wonderful  legislation; 
the  disastrous  consequences  attending  its  absence 
are  noted  above  by  Lange. 

II.  Lange  (also  under  Exeg.):  "The  limita- 
tion of  human  proprietary  right  to  the  soil  has 
also  its  permanent  ideal  significance.  God  chal- 
lenges to  Himself  the  royal  right  over  terrestrial 
nature,  as  a  clear  idea  of  this  is  given  indeed  in 
the  winter  storm  over  the  sea,  the  Alpine  glacier 
and  the  deserts.  Man  is  inclined,  in  his  ego- 
tistical industry,  to  harass  nature  as  his  beast." 

III.  "  Looking  at  the  law  of  Jubilee  from  a 
simply  practical  point  of  view,  its  operation 
must  have  tended  to  remedy  those  evils  which 
are  always  growing  up  in  the  ordinary  condi- 
tions of  human  society.  It  prevented  the  per- 
manent accumulation  of  land  in  the  hands  of  a 
few,  and  periodically  raised  those  whom  fault 
or  misfortune  had  sunk  into  poverty  to  a  posi- 
tion of  competency.  It  must  also  have  tended 
to  keep  alive  family  feeling,  and  helped  to  pre- 
serve the  family  genealogies But  in   its 

more  special  character,  as  a  law  given  by  Jeho- 
vah to  His  peculiar  people,  it  was  a  standing 
lesson  to  those  who  would  rightly  regard  it,  on 
the  terms  upon  which  the  enjoyment  of  the  land 
of  Promise  had  been  conferred  upon  them.  All 
the  land  belonged  to  Jehovah  as  its  supreme 
Lord,  every  Israelite  as  His  vassal  belonged  to 
Him."   Clark. 

IV.  The  law  of  slavery  as  understood  among 
ancient,  nations  generally  is  here  essentially 
modified  and  softened,  the  Levitical  precepts 
tending  in  the  same  direction  with  those  of  the 
Gospel  which,  after  so  long  a  time,  have  now 
nearly  effected  its  abolition  throughout  the  civi- 
lized world.  But  in  regard  to  the  Hebrews 
themselves,  the  law  went  much  further,  and 
substantially  aholished  slavery  at  once,  reducing 
it  to  a  six  years'  service,  and  even  this  inter- 
rupted by  the  year  of  Jubilee,  and  subject  to 
many  restrictions.  It  is  still  further  to  be  re- 
membered that  any  foreign  slave  might  be  ad- 


mitted to  the  privileges  of  the  Hebrew,  by 
becoming  an  Israelite  through  the  reception  of 
circumcision.  Thus  strongly  did  the  law  set  its 
face  against  the  institution  of  slavery. 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Lange  (under  Exeg.) :  "  The  Sabbath  year  is 
the  germ  of  the  Jubilee  year,  as  this  is  a  type 
of  the  New  Testament  time  of  deliverance,  resto- 
ration and  freedom  (Isa.  lxi. ;  Luke  iv.  18),  and 
further,  a  prelude  and  a  prophecy  of  the  hea- 
venly and  eternal  Sabbath  itself  (Heb.  iv.)." 

Lange  (Eomiletik):  "The  year  of  Jubilee  of 
the  theocratic  land.  The  great  year  of  rejoicing 
in  the  theocratic  community.  Ideals  which 
have  been  scantily  and  scarcely  fulfilled  in  the 
letter  in  Israel,  but  which  in  Christianity  are 
continually  being  realized  in  the  spirit.  And 
this  indeed  in  the  commendable  care  of  the  fields 
and  forests;  in  the  dread  of  a  gross  profit  out 
of  nature;  in  the  limitation  of  the  proprietary 
right  of  individuals  over  nature;  in  customs  of 
gentleness;  in  the  consecration  of  the  social 
right  of  fellowship;  the  right  of  the  poor,  the 
right  of  the  laboring  man,  the  right  of  rent  and 
purchase.  The  later  dismal  caricatures  of  these 
ideals.  Seven  years  a  period  after  which  the 
administration  of  nature  required  a  new  revi- 
sion; forty  [fifty]  years  a  period  after  which 
the  arrangements  of  business  required  a  revi- 
sion. The  neglect  of  reform  a  source  of  revolu- 
tion. The  Jubilee  year  a  type  of  the  Gospel 
time  of  deliverance  (Isa.  lxi.  ;  Luke  iv.  lti). 
The  true  preaching  of  the  Gospel  always  a  pro- 
clamation of  the  true  Jubilee  3'ear.  The  Jewish 
and  the  Christian  emancipation  from  slavery  :  1 ) 
its  common  foundation,  2)  its  greater  differ- 
ence, 3)  its  unceasing  development  in  the  world." 

As  the  law  provided  for  a  redeemer  for  the 
poor,  so,  says  Wordsworth,  Christ  became  the 
Redeemer  for  the  spiritually  poor,  reinstating 
us  in  our  lost  estate,  and  delivering  us  from  the 
bondage  of  sin  ;  and  this  He  was  entitled  to  do 
because  by  His  incarnation  He  took  our  nature 
and  became  our  Kinsman. 

By  the  prohibition  of  sowing  and  harvesting 
in  the  Sabbatical  and  Jubilee  years  was  again 
taught  that  principle  which  the  Israelites  learned 
from  the  manna  in  the  wilderness,  and  which 
the  words  of  Christ  make  of  perpetual  validity, 
that  "man  doth  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by 
every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of 
the  Lord." 

Very  full  and  striking  are  the  provisions  of 
this  chapter  for  the  loving  care  of  the  poor,  not 
for  the  sake  of  the  poor  only,  but  for  the  sake 
of  him  who  should  show  them  kindness.  That 
the  blessing  of  this  lesson  might  not  cease  with 
the  Mosaic  dispensation,  God  has  provided  that 
we  shall  have  the  poor  always  with  us,  and  our 
Lord  has  elevated  our  ministrations  to  them  into 
ministrations  to  Himself.  Similarly  kindness 
and  consideration  towards  those  who  labor  for 
us  is  taught  by  Moses,  and  is  ever  made  one  of 
the  prominent  practical  duties  of  Christianity. 
See  Eph.  vi.  9,  etc. 


CHAP.  XXVI.  1-46.  .  193 


PART  FOURTH. 

Conclusion.  —  Promises    and    Threats. 
Chapter  XXVI.  1-46. 

1  Ye  shall  make  you  no  idols'  nor  graven  image,'  neither  rear  you  up  a  standing 
image,3  neither  shall  ye  set  up  any  image  of  stone4  in  your  land,  to  bow  down  unto5 

2  it :  for  I  am  the  Lord  your  God.     Ye  shall  keep  my  sabbaths,  and  reverence  my 
sanctuary  :  I  a?ra  the  Lord. 

3,4     If  ye  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  keep  my  commandments,  and  do  them;  then 
will  I  give  you  rain  in  due  season,  and  the  land  shall  yield  her  increase,  and  the 

5  trees  of  the  field  shall  yield  their  fruit.     And  your  threshing  shall  reach  unto  the 
vintage,  and  the  vintage  shall  reach  unto  the  sowing  time  :  and  ye  shall  eat  your 

6  bread  to  the  full,  and  dwell  in  your  land  safely.     And  I  will  give  peace  in  the  land, 
and  ye  shall  lie  down,  and  none  shall  make  you  afraid :  and  I  will  rid  evil  beasts 

7  [animals6]  out  of  the  laud,  neither  shall  the  sword  go  through  your  land.     And  ye 

8  shall  chase  your  enemies,  and  they  shall  fall  before  you  by  the  sword.     And  five 
of  you  shall  chase  an  hundred,  and  an  hundred  of  you  shall  put  ten  thousand  to 

9  flight :  and  your  enemies  shall  fall  before  you  by  the  sword.     For  I  will  have  re- 
spect unto  you,  and  make  you  fruitful,  and   multiply  you,  aud  establish  my  cove- 

10  nant  with  you.     And  ye  shall  eat  old  store,  and  bring  forth  [clear  away']  the  old 

11  because  of  the  new.     And  I  will  set  my  tabernacle   [dwelling-place8]  among  you: 

12  and  my  soul  shall  not  abhor  you.     And  I  will  walk  among  you,  and  will  be  your 

13  God,  aud  ye  shall  be  my  people.  I  am  the  Lord  your  God,  which  brought  you 
forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  that  ye  should  not  be  their  bondmen :  and  I  have 
broken  the  bands'  of  your  yoke,  and  made  you  go  upright. 

14  But  if  ye  will  not  hearken  unto  me,  and  will  not  do  all  these  commandments; 

15  and10  if  ye  shall  despise  my  statutes,  or  if  your  soul  abhor  my  judgments,  so  that  ye 

TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 
1  Ver.  1.  dVSx.    See  Textual  Note  »  on  xix.  4. 

*  Ver.  1.  702,  from  703  to  carve,  is  ustd  of  an  imago  of  any  material,  but  is  here  taken,  as  in  lea.  xliv.  15, 17  ;  xlv. 

-  T 

20,  of  an  imac"  Of  wood. 

3  Ver.l.  nOi'O  lit.  anything  tet  up.    DeDce  used  of a  memorial  stone,  Gen.  xxviii.  18-22;  III T.  14;  ba.xlx.19;  an- 

swering  to  the  Aiflapoi  Atirapoi  of  the  ancients.     As  these  came  to  he  used   Tor  idolatrous  purpose  the  word  obtained    I'a 
i  y  aeuae  as  in  the  text  (Ex.  xxiil.  24 ;  2  Ki.  iii.  2,  etc.).    The  marg.  of  the  A.  V.  follows  the  LXX.  arv\r)v.  The  Vulg. 
has  titulii'ii. 

*  Ver.l.  jV3tyO  does  not  elsewhere  occnr  in  connection  with  !0N,  hut  its  meaning  by  itself  figure,  imagery,  is  suffi- 
ciently well  sptth-'i.     The  only  question  here  is  whether  the  phrase  denotes  an  image  of  stone  (A.  V    BO  K     I  .  or  a  stone  icith 

iti  V.  V.  mare;.  R**en.).  The  latter  ta  probably  the  m  i  i  >rr  I  Yiew,  but  not  sufficiently  certain  to 
warrant  a  cb  inge  In  the  text.  LXX.  \i$ov  atcon'ov  apparently  in  the  Benae  "f  a  propnytocfi  ry,  and  of  this  the  Vulg.  lapi- 
dtm  insignem  may  br)  a  translation.     Targ.  Onk.,  and  jun.  and  Syr.  stone  of  adoration  ;  Targ.  Jerue.  stone  «f  error. 

6  Ver.  1.  The  construction  of  7J»  here  has  somewhat  perplexed  the  critics.  Oeddes  contends  that  as  it  never  elsewhere 

precedes  the  object  of  adoration,  it  must  here  signify  at,  by.  or  upon.    Kelt  explains  it  "  on  the  ground  that  the  worshipper 

of  a  stone  image  rises  above  it  (for  7y  in  tbiB  sense,  see  Gen.  xviii.  2)."    But  this  fact  is,  at  the  least,  very  doubtful ;  and 

the  ordinary  meaning  of  7^»  as  signifying  motion  towards,  ini,  seems  to  be  all  that  the  connection  requires. 

•  Ver.  6.  rVTl.    See  Textual  Note  >  on  xi.  2. 

I  Ver.  lf>.  ItVXifl  is  exactly  rendered  by  the  A.  V.,  but  the  sense  intended  is  better  conveyed  by  the  suggested  emeu. 

dation  of  Clirk. 

»  Ver.  11.  'JOCTD-    See  Textual  Note  8  on  xv.  31. 

•  Ver.  13.  "  7y    nbb,  ?■'(.  the  poles  of  the  yoke  (comp.  Ezek.  xxxiv.  27),  i.  A,  the  poles  which  arc  laid  upon  the  necks 
of  beasts  of  burden  [Jer.  xxvii.  2]  as  a  yoke."  B>il.    For  S^'  the  Ram.  and  many  MSS.  have  the  fuller  form  7lJ?- 

i"  Ver.  15.  The  conjunction  is  wanting  in  6  MSS.,  the  Sam.,  Vulg.,  andSyr. 


191  LEVITICUS. 


16  will  not  do  all  my  commandments,  but  that  ye  break  my  covenant :  I  also  will  do 
this  unto  you  ;  I  will  even  appoint  over  you  terror,"  consumption,  and  the  burning 
ague  [wasting  away,  and  the  burning  fever12]  that  shall  consume  the  eyes,  and  cause 
sorrow  of  heart  [the  soul  to  pine  away13]  :  and  ye  shall  sow  your  seed  in  vain,  for  your 

17  enemies  shall  eat  it.  And  I  will  set  my  face  against  you,  and  ye  shall  be  slain 
before  your  enemies  :  they  that  hate  you  shall  reign  over  you  ;  and  ye  shall  flee 

18  when  none  pursueth  you.     And  if  ye  will  not  yet  for  all  this  hearken  unto  me,  then 

19  I  will  punish  you  seven  times  more  for  your  sius.     And  I  will  break  the  pride  of 

20  your  power  ;  and  I  will  make  your  heaven  as  iron,  and  your  earth  as  brass :  and 
your  strength  shall  be  spent  in  vain  :  for  your  land  shall   not  yield  her  increase, 

21  neither  shall  the  trees  of  the  land14  yield  their  fruits.  And  if  ye  walk  contrary 
unto  me,  and  will  not  hearken   unto  me ;  I  will  bring  seven  times  more  plagues 

22  upon  you  according  to  your  sins.  I  will  also  send  wild  beasts  [animals6]  among 
you,  which  shall  rob  you  of  your  children  [make  you  childless15],  and  destroy  your 

23  cattle,  and  make  you  few  in  number  ;  and  your  high  ways  shall  be  desolate.  And 
if  ye  will  not  be  reformed  by  me  by  these  things,  but  will  walk  contrary  unto  me  ; 

24  then  will  I  also  walk  contrary  unto  you,  and  will  punish  you  yet  seven  times  for 

25  your  sins.  And  I  will  bring  a  sword  upon  you,  that  shall  avenge  the  quarrel  of 
[omit  the  quarrel  of16]  my  covenant:  and  when  ye  are  gathered  together  within 
your  cities,  I  will  send  a  pestilence  among  you  ;  and  ye  shall  be  delivered  into  the 

26  hand  of  the  enemy.  [;]  And  [omit  And}  when  I  have  broken  the  staff  of  your  bread, 
ten  women  shall  bake  your  bread  in  one  oven,  and  they  shall  deliver  you  your  bread 

27  ao-aiu  by  weight :  and  ye  shall  eat,  and  not  be  satisfied.     And  if  ye  will  not  for  all 

28  this  hearken  unto  me,  but  walk  contrary  unto  me  ;  then  I  will  walk  contrary  unto 

29  you  also  in  fury ;  and  I,  even  I,  will  chastise  you  seven  times  for  your  sins.  And 
ye  shall  eat  the  flesh  of  your  sons,  and  the  flesh  of  your  daughters  shall  ye  eat. 

SO  And  I  will  destroy  your  high  places,  and  cut  down  your  images,17  and  cast  your 

31  carcases  upon  the  carcases  of  your  idols,18  and  my  soul  shall  abhor  you.  And  I 
will  make  your  cities  waste,  and  bring  your  sanctuaries19  unto  desolation,  and  I  will 

32  not  smell  the  savour  of  your  sweet  odours.     And  I  will  bring  the  laud  into  desola- 

33  tion:  and  your  enemies  which  dwell  therein  shall  be  astonished  at  it.  And  I  will 
scatter  you  among  the  heathen,  and  will  draw  out  a  sword  after  you  ;  and  your  land 
shall  be  desolate,  and  your  cities  waste. 

34  Then  shall  the  land  enjoy  her  sabbaths,  as  long  as  it  lieth  desolate,  and  ye  be  in 

35  your  enemies'  land  ;  even  then  shall  the  land  rest,  and  enjoy  her  sabb  iths.  As 
long  as  it  lieth  desolate  it  shall  rest;  because  [all  the  days  of  its  desolation  it  shall 

«  Ver.  16.  For  ilSrtS  —  terror  the  Sam.  reads  nSn3  =  ntdmas  as  a  general  term  including  the  specifications  that 
follow.  The  word  i*  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  of  Jer.  xv.  sYs  'here,  and  in  Ps.  lxxviii.  33 ;  Isa.  lxv.  SB,  trouble.  It  does  not 
occur  elsewhere.     The  idea  is  that  of  "  mens'  heart*  f.iilmg  them  for  fear,"  Luke  xxi.  i.6. 

12  Ver.  16.  n-JTTu?  —  watting  away  is  well  expressed  by  the  consumption  of  the  A.  V.  in  its  etymological  sense,  but  is  in 
daneer  of  being  m'i  nn  lerstood  of  the  soecific  dis  ase  of  that  name  which  is  rare  in  Palestine  and  Syria.  The  LXX..  how- 
ever,  has  ^pa*.  nmp,  LXX.  nvperos,  according  to  all  authorities  should  be  burning  Jever.  levers  are  the  mo.t  com- 
mon of  all  diseases  hfsyria  and  the  neighboring  countries.    These  words  occur  only  in  the  parallel,  Deut.  xxviii.  22. 

13  Ver.  16.  H3J    rij'TJ.    The  literal  translation  is  more  expressive  than  the  paraphrase  of  the  A.  V. 
M  Ver.  20.  For  VlNn  21  MSS.  and  the  LXX.  read  HIUTI. 

15  Ver.  22.  D^HX    H^i?.    The  literal  rendering  is  sufficient. 

w  Ver.  25.  JT^-Dp^  fOpj  '''•  "avenging  the  covenant  vengeance."  As  this  cannot  be  expressed  in  English  the 
Qp]  is  better  left  uiitrausiated'th'an  rendered  by  quarrel,  which  it  does  not  mean. 

"  Ver.  30.  DZH'Sn.  In  most  other  places  where  the  word  occurs  (2  Chr.  xiv.  5  (4);  xxxiv.  4;  Isa.  xvii.  8;  Ezek. 
vi  4)  the  marc,  of  'the  A.  V.  has  tun-imaqe,.  Such  was  undoubtedly  the  original  meaning  of  the  word;  hut  Gesenius  (Th>,.) 
shots  thettb, •  wor.1  was  applied  to  images  of  I!  ,al  and  Asta.te  as  the  deities  of  the  sun  and  moon.  The  word  indicates 
"idols  of  tue  Oanaanitish  nature-worship."  KeiL 

18  Ver.  30.  D'Sbj  =  umxthing  to  be  rolled  about,  a  contemptuous  expression  for  idols.    The  Heb.  had  three  different 

words  which  are  rendered  VrfoMn  the  A.  V.,  and  seven  which  are  rendered  image.  ,«.._„ 

10  Ver  81.  More  than  60  MSS.,  the  Sam.  and  the  Syr.,  have  the  stag.  The  pnral  refers  to  «  the  holy  things  of _the  wor- 
ship "r  .lehovah,  the  tabernacle  and  temple,  with  tleir  altars,  and  tin,  rest  of  their  holy  lurmture.as  in  Pa.  lxvm.  36,  lxxiv. 
6,"  Keil ;  and  not  to  the  sanctuaries  of  talse  gods  (Rosen,  and  others). 

»  Ver.  35.  Here  also  it  is  better  to  keep  to  the  literal  rendering  of  the  Heb.  OJ1  *lt?X  HX  rt3OT  HSCfn  BY" '^f 
The  land  should  rest  not  merely  because,  but  it  should  actually  rest  the  time  which  it  had  not  rested. 


CHAP.  XXVI.  1-46. 


195 


36  rest  that  which20]  it  did  not  rest  in  your  sabbaths,  when  ye  dwelt  upon  it.  And 
upon  them  that  are  left  alive  of  you  t  will  send  a  faintness21  into  their  hearts  in  the 
lands  of  their  enemies  ;  and  the  sound  of  a  shaken  leaf  shall  chase  them  ;  and  they 

37  shall  flee,  as  fleeing  from  a  sword  ;  and  they  shall  fall  when  none  pursueth.  And 
they  shall  fall  one  upon  another,  as  it  were  before  a  sword,  when  none  pursueth  : 

38  and  ye  shall  have  no  power  to  stand  before  your  enemies.     And  ye  shall  perish 

39  among  the  heathen,  and  the  land  of  your  enemies  shall  eat  you  up.  And  they  that 
are  left  of  you  shall  pine  away  in  their  iniquity'22  in  your23  enemies'  lands;  and  also 
in  the  iniquities  of  their  fathers  shall  they  pine  away  with  them. 

40  If  they  shall  confess  their  iniquity,  and  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers,  with  their 
trespass  which  they  trespassed  against  me,  and  that  also  they  have  walked  contrary 

41  unto  me;  and  that  I  also  have  walked  contrary  unto  them,  and  have  brought  them 
into  the  land  of  their  enemies  ;  if  then  their  uncircumcised  hearts  be  humbled,  and 

42  they  then  accept24  of  the  punishment  of  their  iniquity  :  then  will  I  remember  my 
covenant  with  Jacob,  and  also  my  covenant  with  Isaac,  and  also  my  covenant  with 
Abraham  will  I  remember  ;  and  I  will  remember  the  land. 

43  The  land  also  shall  be  left  of  them,  and  shall  enjoy  her  sabbaths,  while  she  lieth 
desolate  without  them:  and  they  shall  accept24  of  the  punishment  of  their  iniquity : 
because,  even  because  they  despised  my  judgments,  and  because  their  soul  abhorred 
my  statutes. 

44  And  yet  for  all  that,  when  they  be  in  the  land  of  their  enemies,  I  will  not  cast 
them  away,  neither  will  I  abhor  them,  to  destroy  them  utterly,  and  to  break  my 

45  covenant  with  them  ;  for  I  am  the  Lord  their  God.  But  I  will  for  their  sakes  re- 
member the  covenant  of  their  ancestors,  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt  in  the  sight  of  the  heathen,  that  I  might  be  their  God  :  I  am  the  Lord. 

46  These  are  the  statutes  and  judgments  and  laws,  which  the  Lord  made  between 
him  and  the  children  of  Israel  in  mount  Sinai  by  the  hand  of  Moses. 


°  Ver  36.  ^p*D  ojt.  Aey.  LXX.  SeiAt'a,  Vulg. pavnr.    It  "signifies  that  inward  anguish,  fear,  and  despair,  which  rend 

the  heart  and  destroy  the  lite."   K.  il.     Comp.  Dent,  xxviii.  P". 

22  Ver.  39.  T'ty  is  either  iniquity  (ad  here  twice  and  in  the  next  Terse  twice),  or  the  punishment  (/iniquity  (as  in  ver.  41). 

The  phrase  "  perish  in  one's  iniquity  "  is  however  sufficiently  common,  and  there  is  no  occasion  to  change  the  translation 
here.    The  Di~tX  =  with  thorn  at  the  close  of  the  verse  refers  to  the  iniquities. 

S3  Ver.  39.  For  your  D2-  more  than  80  MSS.  read  theii  DT\~,  so  also  the  Sam.,  LXX.,  Sym.,  Theod.,  Vulg.  and  Syr.  as 
the  text  in  ver.  41. 

**  Vers.  41, 43.  1ST.    The  same  word  as  is  used  in  vers.  34,  43,  the  land  shall  enjoy  her  sabbaths.    The 

literal  rendering  is  perhaps  too  hold  for  our  version  ;  hut  the  meaning  is  really  this.  "  The  land  being  desolate  shall  have 
the  blessing  of  lest,  and  they  having  repented  shall  have  the  blessing  of  chastisement.  So  the  LXX.  and  Svriac."  Clark. 
Comp.  Isa.  xl.  2.    fljlj;   r)X"U- 

sequent  history  of  the  nation  is  had  in  view.  The 
chapter  contains:  first,  promises  upon  their  obe- 
dience (3-13) ;  it  then  describes  the  consequences 
of  disobedience  (14-39),  which  are  put  hypolhe- 
tically,  but  evidently  contemplated  as  likely  to 
occur;  and  finally,  looks  forward  to  the  resto- 
ration of  the  covenant  ui  the  repentance  of  the 
people  (40-44),  which  is  also  put  hypothetically, 
but  is  evidently  prophetic.  Ver.  -40  forms  the 
conclusion  of  this  whole  series  of  legislation. 

Objection  has  been  made  to  the  Mosaic  origin 
of  this  chap,  by  rationalistic  critics  on  account 
of  its  prophetic  character.  Certainly  it  is  pro- 
phetic, and  if  this  be  objected  to  any  portion  of 
Scripture,  the  objector  must  be  met  on  other 
than  merely  exegetical  grounds,  but  here  the  ra- 
tionalistic argument  may  be  fully  met  in  a  dif- 
ferent way.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  that 
the  author  of  the  remarkable  legislation  con- 
tained in  this  book,  possessed  of  as  intimate 
knowledge  as  he  must  have  been  of  the  people 
under  his  charge,  should  not  have  foreseen  that 
they  would  fail  to  maintain  the  standard  of  holi- 
ness here  required,  and  that  consequently  God, 


EXEGETICAL   AND  CRITICAL. 

Lange  here  again  insists  that  vers.  1  and  2  are 
properly  the  close  of  the  foregoing  section.  It 
was  already  too  late  to  adopt  his  division  when 
his  work  appeared;  but  independently  of  this 
the  connection  with  the  present,  chap,  is  prefer- 
red. The  verses  reiterate  the  most  fundamental 
requirements  of  the  law,  and  thus  form  an  ap- 
propriate introduction  to  these  concluding  pro- 
mises and  threats. 

The  whole  precepts  and  prohibitions  of  the 
Book  of  Leviticus  have  now  been  given,  and  here 
the  people  are  incited  to  their  faithful  observance 
by  promises  of  blessings  on  their  obedience  and 
curses  upon  their  disobedience.  This  arrange- 
ment is  both  natural  in  itself,  and  is  in  accord 
ance  with  the  analogy  of  the  warnings  and  pro- 
mises (Ex.  xxiii.  29-33)  at  the  close  of  the  "  Book 
of  the  Covenant,"  (Ex.  xx.  22 — xxiii.  19)  and  in 
the  parting  exhortations  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxix., 
xxx. ).  The  passage  in  Exodus,  however,  relates 
to  the  conquest  of  the  laud,  while  here  the  sub- 


196 


LEVITICUS. 


whose  holiness  and  majesty  it  has  been  his  ob- 
ject to  set  forth,  would  visit  them  for  their 
transgressions.  It  is  but  a  step  beyond  this  to 
look  forward  to  the  effect  of  chastisement  and 
humiliation  in  producing  repentance,  and  when 
this  had  been  effected,  his  knowledge  of  the 
mercy  and  loving-kindness  of  God  assured  him  of 
the  restoration  of  the  people  to  His  favor.  See  this 
point  admirably  treated  by  Keil  in  a  note  on  p.  468. 

Lange :  "  The  germ  of  this  whole  setting  forth 
of  blessing  and  curse  already  lies  in  the  deca- 
logue itself  (Ex.  xx.  5,  12),  but  especially  as  a 
conditional  promise  of  blessing  in  the  section 
Ex.  xxiii.  23-33.  It  is  appropriate  to  the  pur- 
pose of  Leviticus  that  this  germ  now  comes  here 
to  its  development,  that  by  the  side  of  the  pro- 
mise of  blessing  on  the  keeping  of  the  covenant 
comes  out  very  explicitly  the  threatening  of  curse 
on  the  breach  of  the  covenant;  for  the  contrast, 
of  blessing  and  curse  goes  forth  from  the  reli- 
gious behaviour  or  misbehaviour  towards  the  law 
of  God  as  a  whole,  as   all  particular  commands 

are   Dummed  up  therein It   must  not  be 

overlooked  that  the  subject  is  here  always  Israel 
in  its  totality,  the  nation  as  a  whole.  The  date 
of  this  section  is  thereby  shown  to  be  very  an- 
cient ;  for  it  would  have  been  otherwise  from  the 
days  of  Messianic  prophecy.  Then  the  contrast 
comes  forward  very  strongly:  the  apostate  Is- 
rael, and  the  Israel  reforming  itself;  also  the 
contrast :  the  Israel  of  the  mass,  and  the  Israel 
of  the  poor,  of  the  humble,  of  the  purified  rem- 
nant. For  this  reason  it  would  be  a  false  infer- 
ence to  consider  the  conditional  prediction  of  our 
section  as  apodictical,  or  indeed  to  suppose  that 
the  curse  would  fall  upon  every  individual  of  the 
nation  of  Israel.  The  apostasy  of  Israel  has 
often  been  treated  as  if  the  flower  of  its  elect  had 
fallen  under  the  curse,  although  history  declares 
that  the  Gentile  church  was  grafted  upon  the 
stock  of  the  Jewish,  and  Paul  can  designate  the 
unbelieving  portion  of  the  Jews  as  "  some,"  not- 
withstanding its  numerical  majority,  in  contrast 
to  the  dynamical  majority  whose  central  point  is 
Christ  Himself.  The  national  curse  has  then 
been  fulfilled  only  in  a  conditional  degree  in 
contrast  to  the  dynamical  blessing  overmastering 
all  curse  ;  but.  nevertheless  in  a  degree  which 
has  shown  in  fearful  majesty  the  reality  of  the 
threatening  of  the  curse.  It  is  a  vain  attempt 
when  one  s  pits  to  intimate,  like  Knobel,  that 
our  prophecy  looks  back  upon  that  which  has 
already  occurred  in  isolated  particulars;  at  all 
events,  this  creates  no  prejudice  against  its  Mo- 
saic origin,  for  its  fulfilment  has  been  progress- 
ing even  to  the  present  day,  and  is  not  yet  fully 
accomplished.  Yet  even  at  the  present  day  the 
emphasis  falls  upon  the  fearful  realization  of  the 
curse  upon  the  nation;  upon  individuals,  how- 
ever, as  such,  only  in  proportion  as  they  trans 
mil.  the  fanatical  or  unbelieving  spirit  of  the 
community, 

"Our  section,  moreover,  is  characterized  as  a 
prophetic  word  in  that  it  brings  into  view  in 
grand  outlines  a  future  which  it  cannot  and  will 
not  describe  with  verbal  definiteness.  Yet  a 
progress  consonant  to  nature  is  to  be  observed 
in  the  gradations  of  the  curse,  which  one  might 
enjoy  as  a  physiological  picture  of  development. 

"If  wc  suppose  that  one  may  speak  of  the  Di- 


vine government  or  word  blamelessly  if  the  sec- 
tion before  us  is  invested  with  a  less  mysterious 
aspect,  we  overlook  the  fact  that  the  course  of 
things  immanent  in  life  remains  the  same  al- 
though the  prophetic  character  of  the  word  be 
Bet  aside;  that  the  chapters  of  calamity  remain 
the  same  although  one  seek  to  erase  the  super- 
scription from  the  punishment  and  from  the  judg- 
ment. Strange  that  one  should  think  the  world 
will  thereupon  cheer  up  when  he  traces  back  the 
dark  destiny  of  a  people  to  a  gloomy  fate,  instead 
of  to  the  justice  of  the  living  God.  It  is  the  very 
nobility  of  apostate  Israel  that  its  Jehovah  is, 
and  has  been,  jealous  with  such  burning  jealousy 
over  its  fall ;  and  it  would  even  seem  worthy  of 
contempt  if  it  were  considered  as  the  football  of 
a  gloomy  destiny — its  sorrows  without  reason, 
without  proportion,  and  without  purpose.  Cer- 
tainly also  the  continuing  motive  for  the  rejec- 
tion of  Israel  itself  is  its  ill-will-againsl  Jehovah, 
or  indeed  against  the  Gentiles,  in  return  for 
which  it  must  acknowledge  in  its  history  its  well 
deserved  visitation 

"  That  the  bearing  of  God  towards  Israel  was 
an  impartial  bearing,  which  could  only  be  ob- 
scured through  the  idea  of  a  national  God,  is 
proved  even  by  our  section  with  its  threatenings 
in  presence  of  the  development  of  the  history  of  Is- 
rael itself:  they  have  been  brought  out  of  Egypt, 
and  Canaan  must  become  their  land;  but  when 
they  apostatize,  they  must  lose  Canaan  and  must  be 
scattered  among  the  heathen  (Keil,  p.  169  [Trans, 
p.  468]).  Not.  only  the  impartiality  indeed,  but 
the  jealousy  of  Jehovah  must  be  made  manifest 
in  this.  The  idea  or  key  of  the  whole  history 
and  destiny  of  Israel  is:  vengeance  of  the  cove- 
nant. The  people  could  fall  so  low  because  they 
stood  so  high,  because  they  were  the  first-fruits, 
the  first-born  sou,  the  favorite  of  God  (Jcshu- 
ruu).  But  for  this  reason  especially  the  pro- 
mise of  their  restoration  is  bound  up  with  the 
prophecy  of  their  curse  (Isa.,  Jer.,  Ezek.,  Hos., 
etc.,  Rom.  xi  ).  Knobel  gives  prominence  to  the 
peculiarly  elevated  language  of  this  section  ;  it 
cannot  he  explained  by  the  ordinary  mechauicism 
of  'Elohistic  and  Jehovistio  documents.'  " 

This  chapter  forms  a  part  of  the  same  Divine 
communication  with  the  preceding  one. 

Vers.  1,  2.  These  verses  include  substantially 
the  first  table  of  the  decalogue,  and  by  this  short 
summary  the  whole  duty  of  the  Israelites  tow- 
ard God  is  called  to  mind  and  made  the  basis  of 
the  following  promises  and  warnings.  On  ver. 
1  see  the  Textual  Notes.  Ver.  2  is  a  repetition 
verbatim  of  xix.  30.  Here,  at  least,  it  must  be 
understood  to  include  the  whole  of  the  "ap- 
pointed seasons  "  as  well  as  the  weekly  Sabbaths. 

A.    The  Blessing.    Vers.  3-13. 

With  ver.  3  a  new  Parashah  of  the  law  begins, 
extending  to  the  close  of  Leviticus.  The  paral- 
lel proper  lesson  from  the  prophets  is  Jer.  xvi. 
19 — xvii.  14.  "  The  subject  here  is  not  the  iso- 
lated good  conduct  of  individuals,  but  the  keep- 
ing of  the  Covenant  of  the  people  as  a  whole  and 
its  general  tendency  to  blessing  ;  the  contrast  to 
which,  the  breach  of  the  Covenant,  is  moulded 
into  the  tendency  to  curse."   Lange. 

Ver.  4.  Lange:  "Rain  in  its  season  appears 
here  as  the  first  gift  of  Jehovah.    When  He  gives 


CHAP.  XXVI.  1-46. 


197 


the  rain  from  heaven,  the  earth  gives  its  produce 
and  the  fruit-trees  give  their  fruit ;  there  is 
formed  a  chain  of  gifts  whose  beginning  lies  in 
the  mysterious  hand  of  God.  "  The  allusion  here 
is  to  the  showers  which  fall  at  the  two  rainy 
Beasons,  and  upon  which  the  fruilfulness  of  Pa- 
lestine depends,  viz.,  the  early  and  latler  rain 
(Deut.  xi.  14).  The  former  of  these  occurs  after 
the  autumnal  equinox,  at  the  time  of  the  winter- 
sowing  of  wheat  and  barley,  in  the  latter  half  of 
October  or  beginning  of  November.  It  generally 
falls  in  heavy  showers  in  Nov.  and  Dec,  and 
then  after  that  only  at  long  intervals,  and  not  so 
heavily.  The  latter,  or  so-called  latter  rain, 
falls  in  March  before  the  beginning  of  the  har- 
vest of  the  winter  crops,  at  the  time  of  the  sow- 
ing of  the  summer  seed,  and  lasts  only  a  few 
days,  in  some  years  only  a  few  hours  (see  Ro- 
binson, Pal.  ii.,  pp.  97  sqq.)."  Keil.  [Also 
Robinson,  Phys.  Geoff,  of  the  H.  I,.,  p.  263.] 
"  In  consequence  of  these  rains  the  land  should 
yield  so  rich  an  increase  that  your  threshing 
shall  reach  unto  the  vintage,  and  the  vin- 
tage shall  reach  unto  the  sowing  time 
(for  the  next  year).  [Ver.  6.  Comp.  Amos 
ix.  13.] 

"  Ver3.  6-8.  The  second  yet  higher  gift  of 
blessing  is  peace  in  the  land,  and  that  in  relation 
to  wild  beasts"   fniH   TVX\,  an  evil  animal,  for  a 

L        T  T  T 

beast  of  prey,  as  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  20.  Keil]  "as 
well  as  to  war;  therefore  they  shall  lie  down 
as  a  herd  which  no  beast  of  prey  and  no  robber 
shall  affright.  Yet  more :  neither  shall  the 
sword  go  through  your  land,  because  they 
should  drive  back  triumphantly  from  their  bor- 
ders the  enemies  who  should  make  any  attack. 
The  aggressor  should  fall  by  the  sword  upon 
the  border."  On  the  language  in  ver.  6  comp. 
Job  xi.  19;  Ps.  cxlvii.  14;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  25-28. 
Ver.  8  is  "  a  proverbial  mode  of  expression  for 
superiority  in  warlike  prowess."  Comp.  Dcut. 
xxxii.  30;  Josh,  xxiii.  10;   Isa.  xxx.  17. 

Vers.  9,10.  Lange:  "The  third  blessing  is 
fruilfulness :  increase  upon  increase  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  strengthening  of  the  Covenant  under 
the  special  support  of  Jehovah."  The  multipli- 
cation of  the  people  was  a  part  of  the  covenant 
promise  (Gen.  xvii.  4-6),  and  its  fulfillment 
established  the  covenant  (ib.  7);  not  merely 
preserved  it,  but  became  the  means  by  which  it 
should  be  extended  ever  farther  and  farther. 
In  view  of  this  increase  the  promise  of  ver.  10 
becomes  more  emphatic:  so  far  from  a  dearth 
beiog  caused  by  the  multitude,  the  new  store 
should  be  reached  before  the  old  could  be  con- 
sumed. This  constitutes  the  fourth  particular 
of  the  blessing. 

Vers.  11-13.  Lange:  "The  fifth  blessing  is 
the  highest:  the  flower  of  their  religion  and 
religiousness.  Jehovah  will  establish  His  dwell- 
ing (His  living  habitation)  among  them. — And 
I  will  walk  among  you,  etc. — This  promise 
touches  typically  even  upon  the  height  of  the 
Christological  incarnation.  Jno.  i.  14."  [As  this 
whole  chapter  has  in  view  their  residence  in 
Canaan,  so  this  promise  in  particular  does  not 
refer  to  God's  leading  His  people  in  their  wan- 
derings, but  to  His  continual  manifestation  of 
Himself  in  their  midst  in  their  settled  home. — 
F.  G.]      "For  these  promises,   spiritually  and 


dynamically  understood,  Jehovah,  the  personal 
God  of  Israel,  makes  Himself  security  ;  and  He 
has  given  them  their  deliverance  from  Egypt  as 
a  proof  and  pledge.  They  shall  not  become  the 
slaves  of  men  through  distress,  but  shall  stand 
upright  as  the  servants  of  God."  That  is,  the 
yoke  of  bondage  which  bowed  down  their  heads 
as  beasts  of  burden  had  been  broken,  and  God 
had  made  them  in  consequence  walk  upright. 

B.  The  Curse.  Vers.  14-33. 
Vers.  14,  15.  Lange:  "The  breach  of  the 
Covenant.  He  begins  with  the  external  con- 
tempt of  the  ordinances  of  the  covenant,  and 
goes  on  to  the  internal  scorn  and  rejection  of 
the  covenant  law,  a  transgression  therefore  of 
the  commands  in  their  totality."  This  is  care- 
fully to  be  borne  in  mind  in  regard  to  these 
warnings.  These  "judgments  are  threatened, 
not  for  single  breaches  of  the  law,  but  for  con- 
tempt of  all  the  laws,  amounting  to  inward  con- 
tempt of  the  Divine  commandments  and  a  breach 
of  the  covenant  (vers.  14,  15) — for  presumptuous 
and  obstinate  rebellion,  therefore,  against  God 
and  His  commandments."  Keil.  Single  sins,  or 
sins  of  individuals,  are  not  the  subject,  but  the 
general  apostasy  of  the  nation. 

Vers.  16,  17,  contain  what  Lange  describes  as 
"  the  punishment  in  the  first  grade;"  it  is  the 
warning  of  visitation  upon  apostasy  alone  be- 
fore it  has  become  complicated  with  the  added 
guilt  of  obdurate  persistency.  Three  punish- 
ments are  mentioned  which  are  to  be  sent,  toge- 
ther, and  not  singly  as  they  were  offered  to  the 
choice  of  David  after  his  sin  in  numbering  the 
people  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  12-14) — disease,  famine 
and  defeat.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  all  these  might 
(and  historically  did)  come  upon  Israel  as  a 
natural  consequence  of  their  neglect  of  the 
Divine  law;  but  they  were  none  the  less  judg- 
ments of  Him  who  had  commanded  that  law  and 
ordained  that  nature  itself  should  protect  it. 
Lange  justly  says:  "One  must  not  overlook  the 
spirit  of  the  Divine  action;  it  is  called  visita- 
tion (ver.  16),  and  henceforth  this  is  the  prin- 
cipal thought  and  purpose  which  pervades  all 
the  punishments.  It  is  also  of  a  deeper  meaning 
here  that  Jehovah  will  set  His  face  against 
them;  for  their  enemies  are  His  instruments, 
and  they  will  be  smitten."  Comp.  Ezek.  xxxiii. 
27-29. 

Vers.  18-20.  According  to  Lange,  "the  pun- 
ishment in  the  second  grade,"  or  the  first  of  the 
more  severe  measures  to  be  visited  upon  obdu- 
rate disobedience.  Here,  and  in  each  of  the 
three  remaining  stages  (vers.  18,  21,  24,  28), 
the  expression  seven  times  is  used.  It  is  at 
once  the  number  of  perfection,  indicating  the 
full  strength  of  the  visitation,  and  also  the  sab- 
batical number,  reminding  the  people  of  the 
broken  covenant.  Comp.  Gen.  iv.  15,  24;  Ps. 
lxxix.  12;  Prov.  xxiv.  16;  Luke  xvii.  4. 
"  There  are  five  degrees  in  the  ever  seven  times 
more  severe  punishment.  God  punishes  so,  that 
He  always  in  wrath  remembers  mercy,  and  gives 
time  far  repentance.  But  no  punishment  is  so 
great  that  a  greater  cannot  follow  it."  Von  Ger-' 
lach. 

Vers.  21,  22.  Lange:  "The  punishment  in 
the  third  grade.     The  godlessuess  becomes  ag- 


10S 


LEVITICUS. 


gressive :  they  walk  inimically  towards  Jehovah, 
the  apostasy  advances  to  bolder  idolatry  and 
contempt  of  God.  But  meanwhile,  Jehovah  yet 
stands  still,  and  only  sends  against  them  the 
forerunners  of  His  vengeance:  ravaging  beasts 
— a  symptom  of  falling  into  decay :  robbers  of 
children,  calamities  among  live  stock,  depopu- 
lation, desolated  highways.  The  beasts  may 
here  be  understood  not  merely  literally."  Comp. 
Judg.  v.  6;  Isa.  xxxiii.  8;  Ezek.  v.  17;  xiv. 
15.  "  Dj?  '"lp  ^[771  (to  go  to  a  meeting  with  a 
person,  i.  e..,  to  meet  a  person  in  a  hostile  man- 
ner, to  fight  against  him)  only  occurs  here  in 
vers.  21  and  23,  and  is  strengthened  in  vers.  24, 

27,  28,  40,  41,  into  DJT  "1M  rfm,  to  engage 
in  a  hostile  encounter  with  a  person."   Keil. 

Vers.  23-20.  Lange:  "  The  punishment  in  the 
fourth  grade.  Now  Jehovah  also  becomes  ag- 
gressive and  acts  inimically  towards  them,  as  if 
Ho  would  destroy  them.  Now  the  breach  of  the 
covenant  is  decided,  and  the  sword  comes  over 
them  as  the  avenger  of  the  covenant.  Pictu- 
resque delineation  of  the  three  dark  riders,  Rev. 
vi.,  only  that  here  the  plague  goes  before  the 
famine."  The  idea  of  the  text  is  clearly  that 
by  the  inroads  of  the  enemy  Israel  would  be 
shut  up  in  their  cities,  and  while  besieged  there, 
would  be  visited  with  pestilence  and  famine. 
Such  calamities  were  repeatedly  experienced,  2 
Kings  vi.  24-29,  etc.  Comp.  Isa.  iii.  1 ;  Jer. 
xiv.  18;  Ezek.  iv.  16;  v.  12,  and  especially  the 
story  of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans. 
To  break  the  staff  of  bread  is  a  frequent  prover- 
bial expression  for  the  infliction  of  extreme 
scarcity.  One  oven  should  suffice  for  the  bread 
of  families  ordinarily  baked  in  ten,  and  in  its 
scarcity  it  should  be  dealt  out  by  weight. 

Vers.  27-33.  Lange:  "  The  punishment  in  the 
fifth  grade.  Now  Jehovah  moves  against  them 
verily  in  fury,  and  the  last  catastrophes  follow  : 
despair  even  to  madness;  the  eating  of  their 
own  children  (Knobel,  Keil,  and  the  Jewish 
history)   [comp.  Deut.   xxviii.   63;  2   Kings   vi. 

28,  29;  Jer.  xiv.  12;  Lam.  ii.  20:  iv.  10;  Ezek. 
v.  10.  Also  Jos.  Bel.  Jud.  v.  10,  3.— F.  G.]; 
overthrow  of  their  idolatrous  cultus,  in  the  sar- 
castic conception  that  the  dead  bodies  of  men 
fall  down  on  the  mock  dead  bodies  of  their  idols, 
carcases  upon  carcases"  [comp.  2  Kings  xxiii. 
16;  Ezek.  vi.  4.  The  high  places  refer  to 
places  of  idolatrous  worship  as  in  use  among 
the  Canaanites  and  most  other  nations,  and 
which  must  have  been  already  sufficiently  fami- 
liar to  Moses  and  his  people. — F.  G.];  "over- 
throw of  even  the  real  historical  sanctuary; 
repudiation  of  the  sacrificial  cultus,  ver.  31" 
[comp.  2  Kings  xxv.  9;  Ps.  lxxiv.  6,  7]  ;  "de- 
solation of  the  land,  so  that  even  the  enemies 
settling  therein  recognize  the  dismal  footprints 
of  punitive  justice,  deportations  of  the  people 
(one  after  another,  comp.  the  Jewish  history 
from  Alexander  to  Hadrian)."  Comp.  Jer.  ix. 
16-22;  xviii.  16;  xix.  8;  Ezek.  v.  Also  Deut. 
iv.  27,  28;  xxviii.  37,  64-68. 

Effects  of  these  Visitations.    Vers.  34-39. 

Vers.   34,   35,    express    the   restorative    effect 

accomplished    by    the   punishment   itself.     The 

laud  must  needs  enjoy  its  Sabbaths  while  it  lay 


desolate.  In  regard  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah, 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21  expressly  fixes  the  length  of 
the  Babylouish  captivity  with  reference  to  the 
number  of  unobserved  Sabbatical  years.  These 
constituted  the  Sabbaths  of  the  land,  the  weekly 
Sabbath  of  one  day  being  too  brief  for  effect 
upon  the  soil.  Vers.  36-39  describe  in  fearful 
terms  the  effect  of  the  Divine  visitation  upon 
the  remnant  who  should  escape  immediate  de- 
struction. On  the  language  of  ver.  38  comp. 
Num.  xiii.  32 ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  13. 

C.    The  Restoration  of  the  Covenant. 

Vers.  40-45. 

Lange:  "  The  first  thing  is  the  acknowledg- 
ment and  confession  of  guilt.  But  the  repent- 
tance  would  be  thorough  only  in  case  the 
misdeeds  of  the  fathers  were  acknowledged 
along  with  their  own  misdeeds,  see  Ps.  Ii. 
The  view  that  Jehovah  has  interposed,  con- 
tending against  them  because  they  contended 
against  Him,  is  the  second  thing,  ver.  41. — 
(Repeated  declaration  in  regard  to  the  cause 
of  the  punishments.)  The  humiliation  under 
the  judgment  of  their  having  an  uncircumcised 
heart,  i.  e.,  of  their  being  heathen  in  a  spiritual 
sense,  is  the  third.  Yes,  they  come  now  to  bless 
the  punishments  of  their  misdeeds,  to  rejoice 
over  them,  since  God  has  visited  them  in  this 
manner  (li'V).  Keil  accepts  the  translation  of 
the  LXX.  evdonhaovaiv  rac  d/zaprlac  avruv,  "they 
will  take  pleasure,  rejoice  in  their  misdeeds, 
t.  e.,  in  the  consequences  and  results  of  them." 
We  hold  with  Luther  to  the  idea  of  J11J  (see 
Gesen.)  as  sufficient  punishment;  the  paradox 
itself  O  feliz  culpa  could  not  be  translated:  they 
have  pleasure  in  their  misdeeds.  But  to  salute 
the  cross  is  a  proof  in  action  of  a  deeper  reli- 
giousness, which  here  already  germinates." 
[See,  however,  Textual  Note  24. — F.  G.] 

"Ver.  41.  In  a  religious  sense  the  divine  par- 
don is  the  cause,  in  a  moral  sense  the  conse- 
quence of  the  repentance  of  the  people ;  the 
remembrance  of  the  Covenant  with  Jacob  and 
Isaac  and  Abraham,  •".  e.  an  ever-deepening, 
inward  remembrance  of  the  old  love,  appears  to 
awake  in  Jehovah,  for  it  does  awake  in  t he  con- 
sciousness of  the  people.  The  holy  land  itself, 
which  cannot  be  forgotten  and  is  kindly,  receives 
now  a  peculiarly  affecting  form.  The  land 
whose  mourning  is  changed  to  feasts,  and  the 
people  whose  penitence  is  changed  to  feasts, 
accord  so  affectingly  with  Jehovah,  that,  so  to 
speak,  He  reveals  Himself  again  as  justifying: 
because,  even  because  they  despised  my 
judgments,  and  because  their  soul  ab- 
horred my  statutes.  And  yet  for  all  that — 
their  pardon  is  approaching  :  viz.  the  restoration, 
and  that  truly  entirely  according  to  the  analogy  of 
the  restoration  from  the  land  of  Egypt.  That  this 
promise  is  effective  for  the  nation  of  Israel,  but  is 
not  to  be  understood  of  the  spiritual  Israel  a9 
such,  needs  no  argument.  At  the  close  again, 
niiV  'JN."  [The  promise  of  mercy  upon  Israel 
when  Ihcy  should  repent  and  turn  to  the  Lord, 
was  certainly  a  promise  to  the  covenant  people, 
and  was  repeatedly  fulfilled  in  their  history, 
especially  in  the  restoration  from  the  captivity 


CHAP.  XXVI.  1-46. 


199 


of  Babylon.  But  tbe  promise  (Jer.  xxxi.  31-34) 
was  that  in  tbe  days  to  come  God  would  make  a 
new  covenant  with  His  people  of  a  more  spirit- 
ual character,  and  in  the  Ep.  to  the  Heb  (viii. 
10-12;  x.  15-18)  we  are  told  that  this  has  been 
accomplished  in  the  Christian  Church  springing 
from  the  bosom  of  the  Jewish.  The  continued 
faithfulness  of  God  to  His  people  according  to 
the  promises  of  this  section,  must  therefore  be 
now  looked  for  after  a  Christian  and  spiritual, 
rather  than  a  Jewish  and  temporal  fashion. — 
F.  G.] 

"And  thus  it  is  conformable  to  the  truth  of  a 
personal  God  Hint  He  should  attach  the  utmost 
importance  to  afflicting  the  personal  life  of  His 
people,  und  then  reanimating  it  again.  If  it  is 
said ;  What  shall  it  profit  a  man,  if  he  shall  gain 
tbe  whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul?  so  is  it 
likewise  said:  What  shall  it  harm  a  man,  if  he 
shall  lose  the  whole  world,  and  his  soul  thereby 
be  delivered  ?  Would  a  philosophy  in  opposi- 
tion to  this,  which  has  sunk  the  personal  life  in 
impersonal  things,  be  a  higher  wisdom? 

"  It  is  to  be  understood  that  the  principles  of 
this  Divine  government  over  Israel  apply,  ac- 
cording to  their  modifications,  to  His  govern- 
ment over  every  nation." 

At  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  Lange  says: 
"  It  cannot  be  concluded  from  ver.  4*3  that  Levi- 
ticus should  properly  end  with  this  section; 
ver.  46  much  rather  looks  back  to  ver.  3,  and 
makes  it  clear  that  the  subject  here  is  the  Cove- 
nant bond  between  Jehovah  and  the  people  of 
Israel."  Ver.  46  undoubtedly  looks  back  imme- 
diately to  xxv.  1,  the  beginning  of  the  Divine 
communication  of  which  this  is  the  end ;  but  as 
it  also  forms  the  close  of  ch.  xxvi.,  so  we  cannot 
but  regard  this  chapter  itself  as  closing  the 
Book  of  Leviticus  proper.  The  analogy  of  this 
with  other  portions  of  the  law  has  already  been 
pointed  out,  and  the  reasons  for  regarding  ch. 
xxvii.  as  an  appendix  will  be  mentioned  in  the 
treatment  of  that  chapter. 

DOCTRINAL   AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  The  warnings  and  promises  of  this  chapter 
show  it  was  foreseen  that  much  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation  was  likely  to  be  neglected  by  the 
people.  Nevertheless  God  gave  it.  The  same 
is  true  of  much  of  Christian  duty,  both  in  regard 
to  definite  observances  as  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  still  more  in  regard  to  the  standard 
of  Christian  life  and  character.  But  because 
man  does  not  come  up  to  its  requirements,  the 
law  is  not  thereby  foiled  of  its  purpose;  its  re- 
quirements were  not  lowered  to  the  level  of 
human  weakness  and  sinfulness,  but  rather  de- 
signed to  set  forth  so  much  of  the  Divine  holi- 
ness and  purity  as  would  be  instrumental  in 
raising  man  to  a  higher  level.  "  It  was  not  like 
the  legislation  of  ordinary  states,  intended  pri- 
marily to  meet  the  exigencies  of  existing  facts 
and  to  keep  offenders  in  order.  Its  purpose  was 
to  help- and  instruct  the  best  of  the  people,  not 
merely  to  chastise  the  worst.  Other  legislators 
have  taken  their  starting  points  from  human 
facts:  Moses  took  his  from  the  character  and 
purpose  of  God."  Clark.  And  in  this,  to  the 
thoughtful  man,  is  a  really  powerful  evidence 
of  the  Divine  authorship  of  the  legislation. 


II.  In  vers.  39,  40,  the  iniquity  of  their 
fathers  is  made  a  part  of  the  sin  for  which  the 
people  were  to  suffer,  and  on  the  confession  of 
which  they  were  to  be  forgiven.  As  this  is 
God's  revealed  word,  so  does  all  history  show 
that  it  is  in  accordance  with  His  government  of 
nature  that  in  nations,  as  in  individuals,  the 
sins  of  the  fathers  are  visited  upon  the  children; 
but  all  this  is  nevertheless  under  the  law  that 
the  sincere  repentance  of  the  children  shall 
avert  from  them  the  punishment  of  their  fore- 
fathers' sins  as  well  as  of  their  own. 

III.  Illustrative  of  ver.  41  is  2  Cor.  vii.  10 
and  Heb.  xii.  11.  The  punishments  of  God 
loading  to  repentance,  however  grievous  they 
may  seem,  are  yet  truly  occasions  of  rejoicing 
in  view  of  their  higher  object. 

IV.  In  ver.  46  the  covenant  legislation  of  Mt. 
Sinai  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  given  by 
the  hand  of  Moses.  This  fact  is  sufficiently 
patent  throughout  the  whole  story  of  the  legis- 
lation; but  its  emphatic  mention  here  has  a 
double  use:  first,  in  showing  that  this  book 
claWM  a  contemporary  origin ;  and  second,  in 
bringing  out  the  fact  of  the  necessity  of  a  medi- 
ator between  man  and  God.  If  Moses  was  only 
a  human  mediator,  especially  strengthened  and 
authorized  for  this  purpose ;  yet  he  points  for- 
ward typically  to  the  one  true  Mediator  from 
whom  alone  man  may  know  the  will  of  God,  and 
through  whom  alone  he  may  draw  near  to  Hi8 
inapproachable  majesty. 

V.  Although  it  is  abundantly  evident  from 
the  warnings  of  this  chapter  that  man  is  unable 
so  to  keep  God's  commandments  as  to  claim  any 
reward  as  of  merit;  yet  it  is  also  clear  from  its 
promises,  and  especially  from  these  as  contrasted 
with  the  warnings,  that  He  does  look  with  favor 
upon  and  will  bless  and  reward  the  honest  effort 
to  do  His  will.  These  things  are  spoken  of 
Israel  as  a  nation,  and  are  true  of  all  nations  in 
all  time;  but  nations  are  made  up  of  individuals, 
and  the  principles  of  the  Divine  bearing  towards 
man  are  as  true  of  the  component  elements  as 
of  the  mass  in  its  totality. 

IIOMILETICAL   AND    PRACTICAL. 

Lange:  "  The  great  contrast  of  blessing  and 
of  curse  which  lies  in  the  law — which  the  law 
strengthens.  Tbe  law  speaks  not  only  of  curse, 
as  many  imagine;  it  speaks  also  of  blessing. 
For  it  is  one  thing  to  be  occupied  with  the 
works  of  the  law  and  to  seek  righteousness 
through  the  law  and  by  means  of  works  (ac- 
cording to  Gal.  iii.  10  fqq.),  and  another  thing 
to  stand  under  the  law  in  the  true  fear  of  God, 
and  to  strive  after  its  righteousness  until  one 
comes  to  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith 
(according  to  Rom.  vii.).  The  law  of  Jehovah 
ever  stands  under  the  protection  of  the  Law- 
giver. It  is  the  rule  of  His  power;  it  is  the 
spirit  of  tbe  world's  history;  it  is  the  voice  of 
conscience  (Rom.  ii.),  and  the  disposition  if  the 
heart.  The  blessings  of  fidelity  to  the  law:  the 
piety  of  a  people,  the  fruitfulness  of  the  land, 
peace,  victory,  etc,  etc.  (xxvi.  1  sqq.).  The 
fearful  gradations  of  the  curse.  Particular 
blessings.  Particular  curses.  The  final  pro- 
mise of  the  restoration  of  Israel  out  of  the  state 


200 


LEVITICUS. 


of  the  cur9e.  Jehovah  will  remember  His  cove- 
nant for  all  those  who  reform  themselves." 

"  There  is  a  marvellous  and  grand  display  of 
the  greatness  of  God  in  the  fact,  that  He  holds 
out  before  the  people,  whom  He  has  just  deli- 
vered from  the  hands  of  the  heathen  and  gathered 
round  Himself,  the  prospect  of  being  scattered 
again  among  the  heathen,  and  that,  even  before 
the  land  is  taken  by  the  Israelites,  He  predicts 
its  return  to  desolation.  These  words  could 
only  be  spoken  by  One  who  has  the  future  really 
before  His  mind,  who  sees  through  the  whole 
depth  of  sin,  and  who  can  destroy  His  own 
work,  and  yet  attain  His  end.  But  so  much  the 
more  adorable  and  marvellous  is  the  grace, 
which  nevertheless  begins  its  work  among  such 
sinners,  and  is  certain  of  victory  notwithstand- 
ing all  retarding  and  opposing  influences." 
Auberlen. 

God  promises  in  vers.  11,  12,  that  He  will  set 
His  tabernacle  and  will  walk  among  His  people 
— a    typical    promise,   fulfilled    in   Christ   who 


tabernacled  in  us  (John  i.  14),  and  through 
whom  we  become  Temple9  of  God  the  Holy 
Ghost  (1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17;  vi.  19),  and  God  will 
"tabernacle  for  ever"  with  us  (Rev.  vii.  15; 
xxi.  3).  Wordsworth. 

Origen  deduces  from  this  chapter  a  commen- 
tary on  2  Timothy  ii.  5:  "  If  a  man  strive  for 
masteries,  yet  is  he  not  crowned  except  he  strive 
lawfully."  Our  efforts  to  obtain  God's  blessing, 
our  hope  of  avoiding  His  wrath,  must  be  in  the 
way  of  His  commandment.  We  oan  only  please 
Him  by  seeking  to  do  His  will,  and  He  has  made 
it  known  to  us. 

There  is  ever  a  due  relation  between  the  tem- 
poral and  the  spiritual,  and  these  promises  show 
that  the  rewards  held  out  before  the  Israelites 
were  of  a  spiritual  as  well  as  a  temporal  charac- 
ter; so  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  along  with 
the  more  spiritual  rewards  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, it  has  the  "promise  of  the  life  that  now 
I  is,"  as  well  as  of  that  which  is  to  come.  Calvin. 


APPENDIX. 

Of  Vows. 

Chap.  XXVII.  1-34. 
1,  2  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and 
say  unto  them,  When  a  man  shall  make  a  singular  vow,  the  persons  shall  be  for 
the  Lord  by  thy  estimation  [special1  vow,  the  souls  shall  be  to  the  Lord  according 

3  to  an2  estimation].  And  thy2  estimation  shall  be  of  the  male  from  twenty  years 
old  even  unto  sixty  years  old,  even  thy2  estimation  shall  be  fifty  shekels  of  silver, 

4  after  the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary.     And  if  it  be  a  female,  then  thy2  estimation  shall 

5  be  thirty  shekels.  And  if  it  be  from  five  years  old  even  unto  twenty  years  old,  then 
thy2  estimation  shall  be  of  the  male  twenty  shekels,  and  for  the  female  ten  shekels. 

6  And  if  it  be  for  a  month  old  even  unto  five  years  old,  then  thy2  estimation  shall  be 
of  the  male  five  shekels  of  silver,  and  for  the  female  thy2  estimation  shall  be  three 

7  shekels  of  silver.     And  if  it  be  from  sixty  years  old  and  above;  if  it  be  a  male, 

8  then  thy2  estimation  shall  be  fifteen  shekels,  and  for  the  female  ten  shekels.  But 
if  he  be  poorer  than  thy2  [be  too  poor  to  pay  the2]  estimation,  then  he  shall  present 
himself  before  the  priest,  and  the  priest  shall  value  him :  according  to  his  ability 
that  vowed  shall  the  priest  value  him. 

9  |    And  if  it  be  a  beast,  whereof  men  bring  an  offering  unto  the  Lord,  all  that  any 

10  man  giveth  of  such  unto  the  Lord  shall  be  holy.     He  shall  not  alter  it,  nor  change 
it,  a  good  for  a  bad,  or  a  bad  for  a  good :  and  if  he  shall  at  all  change  beast  for 

11  beast,  then  it  and  the  exchange  thereof  shall  be  holy.     And  if  it  be  any  unclean 
beast,  of  which  they  do  not  offer  a  sacrifice  [an  offering3]  unto  the  Lord,  then  he 


TEXTUAL   AND   GRAMMATICAL. 
1  Ver.  2.  "  T1J   N'  7371  doea  not  mean  to  dedicate  or  net  apart  a  vow,  but  to  make  a  epecial  vow."  Keil. 
8  Vers.  2,  3,  5,  C,  7,  8,  e'c.    ''Tbe  second  3  in  n3"^'3  is  formative  of  the  noun,  by  reduplication  of  the  third  radical : 
It  i'b  not  the  pronominal  suffix."  Iloraley.    "The  Ileb.  subst.  "p^t,  estimation  or  value,  ia  never  found  in  Scriptnre,  but  with 

the  pronoun  i  f  tin-  second  i"" son  joined  to  it;  and  which  is  an  expleliv,  having  no  use  but  to  diBtinpuish  it  from  the  ro<*nn. 

in  j  <if  rdinaoce,  <>r  laying  In  order."  D-'Ig;ido.    According  to  Furst  "  the  stiff,  refers  to  the  person  valued."    Tbe  I,XX  , 

Onk.,  Vulg.  ami  Syr.  omii  the  pronoun  altogether. 
»  Ver.  11.  t3"lp-    See  Textual  Note  '  on  ii.  1. 


CHAP.  XXVII.  1-34.  201 


12  shall  present  the  beast  before  the  priest:  and  the  priest  shall  value  [estimate4]  it, 
whether  it  be  good  or  bad :  as  thou  valuest  it,  who  art  the  priest  [according  to  the2 

13  estimation'  of  the  priest],  so  shall  it  be.  But  if  he  will  at  all  redeem  it,  then  he 
shall  add  a  fifth  part  thereof  unto  thy2  estimation. 

14  And  when  a  man  shall  sanctify  his  house  to  be  holy  unto  the  Lord,  then  the 
priest  shall  estimate  it,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad :  as  the  priest  shall  estimate  it, 

15  so  shall  it  stand.  And  if  he  that  sanctified  it  will  redeem  his  house,  then  he  shall 
add  the  fifth  part  of  the  money  of  thy2  estimation  unto  it,  and  it  shall  be  his. 

16  And  if  a  man  shall  sanctify  nnto  the  Lord  some  part  of  a  field  of  his  possession 
[inheritance6],  then  thy2  estimation  shall  be  according  to  the  seed  thereof:  an  homer 

17  of  barley  seed  shall  be  valued  at  fifty  shekels  of  silver.     6lf  he  sanctify  his  field  from 
13  the  year  of  jubile,  according  to  thy2  estimation  it  shall  stand.     But  if  he  sanctify 

his  field  after  the  jubile,  then  the  priest  shall  reckon  unto  him  the  money  according 
to  the  years  that  remain,  even  unto  the  year  of  the  jubile,  and  it  shall  be  abated 

19  from  thy2  estimation.  And  if  he  that  sanctified  the  field  will  in  any  wise  redeem 
it,  then  he  shall  add  the  fifth  part  of  the  money  of  thy2  estimation  unto  it,  and  it 

20  shall  be  assured  to  him.     And  if  he  will  not  redeem  the  field,  or  if  he  have  sold  the 

21  field  to  another  man,  it  shall  not  be  redeemed  any  more.  But  the  field,  when  it 
goeth  out  in  the  jubile,  shall  be  holy  unto  the  Lord,  as  a  field  devoted;  the  pos- 

22  session  [inheritance5]  thereof  shall  be  the  priest's.  And  if  a  man  sanctify  unto  the 
Lord  a  field  which  he  hath  bought,  which  is  not  of  the  fields  of  his  possession 

23  [inheritance5] ;  then  the  priest  shall  reckon  unto  him  the  worth  of  thy2  estimation, 
even  unto  the  year  of  the  jubile:  and  he  shall  give  thine2  estimation  in  that  day, 

24  as  a  holy  thing  unto  the  Lord.  In  the  year  of  the  jubile  the  field  shall  return 
unto  him  of  whom  it  was  bought,  even  to  him  to  whom  the  possession  [inheritance5] 
of  the  land  did  belong. 

25  And  all  thy2  estimations  shall  be  according  to  the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary : 
twenty  gerahs  shall  be  the  shekel. 

26  Only  the  firstling  of  the  beasts,  which  should  be  the  Lord's  firstling,  no  man 
shall  sanctify  it ;  whether  it  be  ox,  or  sheep  [one  of  the  flock'],  it  is  the  Lord's. 

27  And  if  it  be  of  an  unclean  beast,  then  he  shall  redeem  [free8]  it  according  to  thine2 
estimation,  and  shall  add  a  fifth  part  of  it  thereto:  or  if  it  be  not  redeemed,  then  it 
shall  be  sold  according  to  thy2  estimation. 

28  Notwithstanding  no  devoted  thing,  that  a  man  shall  devote  unto  the  Lord  of 
all  that  he  hath,  both  of  man  and  beast,  and  of  the  field  of  his  possession,  shall  be 

29  sold  or  redeemed :  every  devoted  thing  u  most  holy  unto  the  Lord.  None  devoted, 
which  shall  be  devoted  of  men,  shall  be  redeemed  [freed8],  but  shall  surely  be  put 
to  death. 

30  And  all  the  tithe  of  the  land,  whether  of  the  seed  of  the  land,  or  of  the  fruit  of 

31  the  tree,  is  the  Lord's  :  it  is  holy  unto  the  Lord.  And  if  a  man  will  at  all  redeem 
ought  of  his  tithes,  he  shall  add  thereto  the  fifth  part  thereof. 

32  And  concerning  the  tithe  of  the  herd,  or  of  the  flock,  even  of  whatsoever  passeth 

33  under  the  rod,  the  tenth  shall  be  holy  unto  the  Lord.  He  shall  not  search  whe- 
ther it  be  good  or  bad,  neither  shall  he  change  it:  and  if  he  change  it  at  all,  then 
both  it  and  the  change  thereof  shall  be  holy ;  it  shall  not  be  redeemed. 

34  These  are  the  commandments,  which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses  for  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  in  mount  Sinai. 

4  Ver.  12.  Valuation  is  quite  as  good  a  translation  of  "Yip ;  but  as  the  A.  V.  has  estimation  in  all  other  places  in  this 
chapter,  it  should  be  retained  here. 

6  Ver.  16.  lj~UnX=;>os«ess!on  here  means  possession  by  inheritance,  and  it  is  better  to  mark  this  in  the  translation  as 
pnrchased  fields  (ver.  22)  come  under  another  law. 

«  Ver.  17.  A  conjunction  is  here  supplied  by  the  Sam.,  16  MSS.,  the  LXX.,  Chald.  and  Syr. 

'  Ver.  26.  riE>.    See  Textual  Note  s  on  xii.  8. 

8  Vers.  27,  29.  7M2)=free  or  deliver.    It  iB  a  different  word  from  the  7XJ  of  the  second  clause  of  Ter.  27  and  of  both 

T  T  -T 

clauses  of  ver.  20,  and  should  be  differently  translated. 
28 


202 


LEVITICUS. 


EXEGETICAL   AKD   CRITICAL. 

The  question  of  the  relation  of  this  chapter  to 
the  rest  of  the  book  is  partly  a  matter  of  form, 
and  partly  to  be  determined  by  the  contents. 
As  to  the  former,  the  preceding  chapter  of  pro- 
mises and  warnings  is  an  appropriate  close  of 
the  legislation,  and  its  last  verse  certainly  has 
the  air  of  the  subscription  to  a  finished  work. 
The  present  chapter  also  closes  with  an  abbre- 
viated form  of  the  same  subscription.  It  may 
be  compared  to  the  close  of  John  xx.,  after 
which  ch.  xxi.  follows  plainly  as  an  addition. 
A8  to  the  subject  matter:  our  chapter  is  very 
clearly  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  book 
in  that  it  treats  of  special  voluntary  consecra- 
tions to  the  Lord ;  and  yet  it  is  connected  with 
the  foregoing,  in  that  these  also  are  to  be  brought 
under  the  same  general  law  of  sacred  fidelity. 
The  chapter  therefore  constitutes  precisely  what 
is  understood  by  an  appendix,  appropriate  to  the 
book.  Lange's  objection  to  this  seems  based 
upon  a  different  idea  of  the  word,  and  his  argu- 
ments go  to  show  only  that  it  is  appropriate. 
He  says,  "1.  With  our  section  corresponds  Num. 
vi.;  xxx.;  Deut.  xxiii.  21  ;  Judges  xi.  35  [34-40]  ; 
Eccl.  v.  5.  According  to  Keil  this  section 
should  be  an  appendix — contrary  to  the  declara- 
tion at  the  close  of  ver.  34.  He  gives  as  his 
reason  :  "  The  directions  concerning  vows  follow 
the  express  termination  of  the  Sinaitic  law-giving 
(xxvi.  40),  as  an  appendix  to  it,  because  vows 
formed  no  integral  part  of  the  covenant  laws, 
but  were  a  freewill  expression  of  piety  common 
to  almost  all  nations,  and  belonged  to  the  modes 
of  worship  current  in  all  religions,  which  were 
not  demanded,  and  might  be  omitted  altogether, 
and  which  really  lay  outside  the  law,  though  it 
was  necessary  to  bring  them  into  harmony  with 
the  demands  of  the  law  upon  Israel."  Accord- 
ing to  this  apprehension,  however,  much  of  the 
Mosaic  legislation  must  stand  in  an  appendix; 
indeed,  it  may  be  said  of  the  sacrifices,  that  they 
are  the  theocratic  regulation  of  a  primeval  sac- 
rificial custom,  and  not  originally  theocratically 
commanded.  We  accept  then  the  view  that  the 
prescriptions  of  this  section  are  attached  to  the 
foregoing  chapter  as  a  law  of  keeping  the  cove- 
nant in  particulars,  viz.  in  relation  to  the  pledged 
word,  or  as  a  law  of  particular  and  individual 
duties  under  the  law  of  keeping  the  covenant 
as  a  whole."  [We  cannot  see  that  this  could  be 
better  defined  than  by  the  word  Appendix. — 
F.  G.]  "The  superscription  of  this  section  'Of 
vows'  is  not  truly  congruous  with  the  whole. 
The  unity  is  :  of  special  consecrations,  or  of  the 
keeping  holy  of  special  covenant  duties  in  rela- 
tion to  their  remissibleness  or  their  irremissi- 
bility,  and  indeed  1)  of  voluntary  and  remissible 
vows  or  consecrations,  vers.  1-27;  2)  of  the 
extraordinary,  but  commanded  and  irremissible 
consecration,  or  of  the  ban,  vers.  28,  29;  3)  of 
the  consecrated  holy  first-fruits,  or  of  the  tithes, 
partly  redeemable  and  partly  unredeemable. 
Vers.  30-33  (34). 

2.  "  The  religious  fundamental  thought  of  the 
section.  Cursorily  considered,  it  appears  a  kind 
of  regulation  for  the  remissible  and  irremissible 
special  duties  of  the  covenant,  and  in  particular 


it  assumes  the  external  character  of  a  tax;  the 
ideal  germ  of  the  whole,  however,  is  again  the 
keeping  holy  of  the  personal  life  in  relation  to 
the  personal  Jehovah,  the  manliness  of  indivi- 
dual piety ;  one  might  say  :  the  keeping  pure  of 
the  religious  vow,  of  the  word  given  to  God;  the 
Divine  ordinance  of  the  ban  ;  the  holy  fruit-tax 
which  is  appointed  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
priests  and  Levites  in  the  same  way  as  the  tem- 
ple-tax for  the  support  of  the  temple  and  the 

sacrifice 

"  3.  The  vows.  On  the  meaning  and  the  na- 
ture itself,  comp.  the  lexicons,  especially  both 
the  articles  in  Herzog's  Real-encyklop'ddie.  Wri- 
tings on  this  subject  of  Weise  and  others."  [See 
also  the  archaeologies,  Art.  vows  in  Smith's  Bib. 
Diet.,  and  important  observations  scattered  in 
Michaelis'  laws.  Art.  73,  83,  124,  145.— F.  G.]. 
"  We  distinguish  promissory  vows  and  vows  of 
renunciation,  ....  bo  that  it  may  be  not  with- 
out meaning  that  the  vows  are  spoken  of  here, 
as  efficient  Levitical  consecrations;  the  renun- 
ciations, or  Nazarite  vows,  on  the  other  hand,  in 
the  book  of  Numbers,  the  book  of  the  social  re- 
lations of  the  commonwealth.  Samson  was  qua- 
lified as  a  Nazarite  for  a  theocratico-political  ac- 
tion ;  Paul's  Nazarite  vow  also  was  devoted  to 
ecclesiastical  politics  (Acts  xxi.) ;  and  James  the 
Just  had  consecrated  himself  as  a  Nazarite  to  the 
deliverance  of  his  nation.  The  religious  vows, 
as  such,  form  a  parallel  to  the  peace  offerings  and 
partly  indeed  were  connected  with  them.  The 
ethics  of  the  Old  Testament  vows  consists  in  this: 
first,  that  they  are  not  commanded  but  volun- 
tary, Deut.  xxiii.  22-24  (consequently  not  the 
object  of  the  mediseval  so-called  consilia  evange- 
lica) ;  and  secondly,  that  as  a  pledged  word  they 
must  be  held  inviolable  (Prov.  xx.  25;  Eccl.  v. 
3,  61,  yet  not  literally,  since  equivalents  for  their 
discharge  were  legally  prescribed;  thirdly,  that 
the  neglect  of  their  fulfilment  is  to  be  expiated 
with  a  sin  offering  (v.  4-6).  The  vows  were  for- 
mal promises  given  to  God  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Sanctuary  ;  they  had  for  their  object  not  only 
cattle,  houses,  and  lands,  but  also  persons,  of 
course,  dependent  children  and  slaves.  The  ex- 
amples of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxv.  14)  and  others, 
show  how  significantly  the  vows  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament operated.  The  superstitious  misinter- 
pretation of  the  vow  of  Jephthah,  according  to 
the  corrections  of  Hengstenberg,  P.  Cassel,  and 
others  previously,  appears  yet  capable  of  being 
held  tolerably  righteous.  It  is  indeed  one  of  the 
exegetical  prejudices  in  which,  from  different 
motives,  literal  orthodoxy  and  negative  criticism 
come  together."  [The  question  of  the  actual 
sacrifice  of  Jephthah's  daughter  has  always  di- 
vided opinion  in  ancient  as  well  as  modern  times. 
Jewish  tradition  is  decided  for  the  actual  sacri- 
fice as  an  unrighteous  act.  There  are  several 
reasons  why  it  is  not  likely  to  have  taken  place: 
no  priest  could  have  been  found  to  offer  it ;  nor 
could  it  possibly  have  received  the  Divine  ac- 
ceptance; and  it  is  contrary  to  the  most  pro- 
bable interpretation  of  the  closing  verses  of  the 
story  (Judg.  xi.  37-40).  Moreover  it  is  unlikely 
that  Jephthah  would  have  committed  such  an  act 
when  he  was  not  bound  to  it  by  his  vow;  the 
vow  was  an  alternative  one, — that  he  would  de- 
dicate what  met  him  to  the  Lord,  ok  offer  it  as  a 


CHAP.  XXVII.  1-34. 


203 


sacrifice.  That  this  is  the  true  sense  of  1  and 
not  and,  as  in  the  A.  V.,  is  plain,  for  even  the 
most  rash  of  men  must  have  remembered  the 
great  improbability  that  the  first  thing  he  met 
on  his  return  would  be  either  one  "of  the  flock 
of  the  herd,"  or  a  pigeon,  the  only  animals  admis- 
sible in  sacrifice.  There  is  therefore  in  the  exe- 
cution of  the  vow  of  Jephthah  no  just  ground  for 
the  absurd  charge  of  the  allowance  of  human 
sacrifices  among  the  Israelites.— F.  G.].  "There 
is  no  question  that  the  vows,  on  account  of  their 
legal  character,  belong  more  to  the  Uld  than  to 
the  New  Testament;  although  they  still  have 
their  place  in  the  New  Testament  time  also,  but 
certaiuly  not  in  the  sense  of  the  mediaeval,  ava- 
ricious priesthood." 

The  general  principle  on  the  subject  of  vows 
is  clearly  laid  down  in  Deut.  xxiii.  21-24:  they 
were  not  obligatory,  and  no  sin  was  incurred  by 
not  making  them ;  but  once  made  they  were  to 
be  conscientiously  kept,  and  their  neglect  (ch. 
v.  4-G)  required  the  expiation  of  the  sin  offering. 
It  appears  from  this  chapter  that  nothing  could 
be  made  the  subject  of  a  vow  which  was  already 
marked  out  by  the  law  as  belonging  to  God;  but 
anything  else  might  be,  and  having  been  vowed, 
might  be  redeemed,  with  the  exception  of  the 
sacrificial  animals,  and  except  also  things  or  per- 
sons devoted,  vers.  28,  29.  The  subject  of  this 
chapter  is  the  ordinary  vow,  and  has  no  refe- 
rence to  the  vow  of  the  Nazarite,  Num.  vi.  1-21. 
The  exceptional  conditions  under  which  the  vow 
was  not  binding  are  detailed  in  Num.  xxx. 

Vers.  1-25.  regulate  the  commutation  of  vows; 
vers.  28,  29  declare  the  incommutability  of  things 
devoted ;  vers.  30-33  declare  what  tithes  and 
under  what  conditions  may  be  commuted:  while 
ver.  34  closes  the  whole.  Under  the  first  head, 
vers.  2-8  relate  to  the  commutation  of  persons; 
9-13,  of  cattle;  14, 15,  of  houses;  16-25,  of  land. 
Vers.  2-8.  Lange:  "According  to  Knobel  the 
consecration  of  persons  means  that  one  allots 
himself,  or  another  of  whom  he  has  the  disposal, 
to  the  Bervice  of  the  Sanctuary.  He  cites  as  ex- 
amples the  consecration  of  Samuel,  the  Gibeon- 
ites,  the  augmentation  of  the  temple  slaves  by 
David  and  Solomon,  Ezra  ii.  58  ;  viii.  20;  Neh. 
vii.  60  ;  xi.  3  (p.  583).  Keil,  on  the  other  hand, 
asserts  that  in  every  vow  of  a  person  redemption 
must  take  place  according  to  the  value,  with  re- 
ference to  the  Mishna  (see  p.  179).  [Trans,  p. 
480  and  note.  Keil  also  cites  Saalschutz,  and 
thinks  Oehler  wrong  in  referring  to  1  Sam.  ii. 
11,  22,  28,  in  proof  of  the  opposite  view. — F.  G.]. 
"But  the  appointed  valuation  little  accords  with 
this.  It  is  inconceivable  why  in  this  case  old 
men  and  old  women  should  have  been  redeemed 
at  a  smaller  cost  than  men  and  women  in  their 
vigor.  Keil  himself  makes  prominent  that  the 
valuation  was  conformed  to  the  vitality  and  skill. 
Besides  the  diversity  of  the  valuation,  it  was  en- 
trusted to  the  priest  to  value  a  poor  man  less, 
from  which  it  does  not  follow  that  lie  mustbe  re- 
deemed, but  only  that  he  might  be.  The  fact  that 
children  under  five  years  of  age  could  not  be 
consecrated,  points  also  to  the  ability  to  serve." 
In  regard  to  the  difference  of  valuation,  Lange's 
argument  does  not  seem  to  be  a  determining  one ; 
on  either  theory  the  valuation  would  naturally 
be  based  upon  what  might  be  called  the  aotual 


worth  of  the  person  ;  but  there  would  be  no  ob- 
ject in  a  valuation  at  all  except  for  the  purpose 
of  redemption,  and  it  is  expressly  provided  that 
all  persons  who  had  been  vowed  must  be  valued. 
The  diminished  valuation  of  a  poor  man  was  a 
merciful  provision  analogous  to  the  alternate  sin 
offering  in  case  of  poverty.  Notwithstanding 
Lange's  view,  it  seems  to  point  very  strongly  to 
the  universality  of  redemption  ;  otherwise  there 
would  be  no  reason  why  the  poor  man  should 
not  have  worked  out  his  vow,  or  why  he  should 
have  been  redeemed  at  a  lower  rate  than  others 
whose  services  were  of  the  same  intrinsic  value. 
In  saying  "  that  children  under  five  years  could 
not  be  consecrated,"  Lange  must  have  overlooked 
ver.  6,  which  expressly  provides  a  valuation  for 
those  vowed  from  one  month  to  five  years.  The 
form  of  expression  in  ver.  2,  moreover,  seems  to 
contemplate  redemption  in  all  cases  of  personal 
vows.  The  objection  to  this  view  is  that  a  per- 
sonal vow  thereby  becomes  only  a  roundabout 
and  awkward  way  of  consecrating  the  amount 
of  the  redemption  money  to  the  Lord;  but  the 
moral  effect  appears  to  have  been  different,  and 
with  the  personal  vow  there  is  to  be  supposed  a 
sense  of  spiritual  consecration  to  God  which  was 
not  removed  by  the  payment  of  the  redemption. 
Kalisch  speaks  very  strongly  :  "  To  our  author 
vowing  a  person  to  God  meant  neither  offering 
him  up  as  a  sacrifice,  nor  dedicating  him  to  the 
service  of  the  temple,  and  much  less  selling  him 
as  a  slave,  but  simply  redeeming  him  by  money 
in  favor  of  the  sacred  treasury  ;  so  foreign  were 
the  two  former  alternatives  to  his  mind,  that  he 
utterly  ignored  them,  and  stated  the  third  as  a 
matter  of  course,  and  the  only  one  to  be  con- 
sidered." 

Vers.  9-13.  Vows  of  animals.  The  right  of 
redemption  in  this  case  depended  upon  the  na- 
ture of  the  animal ;  if  it  was  one  suitable  for  sa- 
crifice (vers.  9,  10),  after  being  once  vowed,  it 
could  not  be  redeemed  or  exchanged,  and  the 
result  of  an  attempt  at  exchange  was  that  both 
animals  should  belong  to  the  Lord.  It  does  not 
follow  that  the  animals  were  to  be  immediately 
sacrificed,  but  they  may  have  been  put  into  the 
herd  from  which  the  public  sacrifices  were  taken. 
The  case  of  animals  of  the  sacrificial  kinds,  with 
blemishes  which  unfitted  them  for  the  altar,  is 
not  especially  mentioned;  but  after  the  analogy 
of  ver.  33,  these  probably  went  to  the  support 
of  the  priests.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ani- 
mal was  unclean  (vers.  11-13),  it  must  be  valued 
by  the  priest;  then  it  might  be  redeemed  by 
adding  one-fifth  to  its  value,  or  else  it  belonged 
to  the  sanctuary.  Keil  thinks  it  was  then  sold 
for  the  benefit  of  the  sanctuary:  but  in  this  case 
the  original  owner  would  have  had  no  occasion 
to  redeem  it  at  a  higher  price  since  he  could 
have  bought  it  at  its  estimated  value.  It  is  more 
likely  therefore  that  such  animals  were  retained, 
at  least  for  a  time,  for  the  use  of  the  priests  and 
Levites.  Keil  considers  that  the  Heb.  J'3  .... 
VD  means  "'between  good  and  bad,'  i.  e.,  neither 
very  high  as  if  it  were  very  good,  nor  very  low 
as  if  it  were  bad,  but  at  a  medium  price."  The 
A.  V.,  however,  is  in  accordance  with  the  an- 
cient versions,  and  is  sustained  by  Gesenius. 
Vers.  14,  15.  The  law  for  houses  is  the  same 


204 


LEVITICUS. 


as  for  unclean  animals.  It  relates  probably  only 
to  houses  in  the  cities,  as  those  in  the  country 
would  come  under  the  following  law  for  land. 

Vers.  16-24.  Lange:  "  Lands,  a.  Inheritances. 
If  they  were  not  redeemed  they  lapsed  in  the 
year  of  Jubilee  to  the  Sanctuary.  If  they  were 
redeemed,  the  price  was  determined  partly  ac- 
cording to  the  money  value  of  the  seed  for  the 
land,  partly  according  to  ihe  number  of  sowings 
or  seed  years  to  the  Jubilee  year,  and  a  fifth 
part  of  the  amount  must  be  added  besides.  These 
ordinances  applied  also  to  the  purchaser  (the 
under  tenant).  A  field  was  taken  for  the  mea- 
sure of  valuation  which  yielded  until  the  year  of 
Jubilee  one  Homer  (223  pounds,  or  two  bushels 
of  seed)."  [The  expression  (ver.  16)  accord- 
ing to  the  seed  thereof  is  generally  under- 
stood to  mean,  according  to  the  seed  required  to 
bow  it;  but  the  difference  is  immaterial;  it  is 
merely  an  expression  of  the  measure  of  valuation, 
and  the  proportion  will  remain  the  Bame  what- 
ever it  be.  The  value  of  the  homer  of  barley, 
however  (estimated  by  Thenius  at  225  pounds), 
is  so  great,  amounting  probably  to  about  twenty  - 
Beven  dollars,  that  it  is  necessary  to  understand 
it,  as  Lange  has  done,  not  of  the  single  homer, 
but  of  a  homer  annually  during  the  forty-two 
years  (omitting  the  seven  Sabbatical  years)  in- 
tervening between  two  Jubilee  years.  This 
would  make  the  money  value  of  the  single  homer 
of  barley  about  64  cts.;  but  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered that  on  the  average  it  was  to  be  paid  many 
years  in  advance,  so  that  we  cannot  estimate 
from  this  the  actual  price  of  the  barley.  Others 
however  (as  Clarke  and  Keil)  think  it  was  an 
annual  payment  as  it  accrupd.  The  meaning  of 
the  expression,  ver.  20,  if  he  have  sold  the 
field  to  another  man  is  uncertain.  Accord- 
ing to  Knobel  it  means  "if  he  has  fraudulently 
Bold  the  field  to  another,  and  taken  the  price  to 
himself,  after  having  vowed  it  to  the  sanctuary." 
In  this  case  the  confiscation  of  the  field  to  the 
Lord  would  be  the  penalty  upon  his  trickery  and 
deceit.  Keil  rejects  this  view,  and  supposes  that 
the  owner  continued  to  cultivate  the  land  him- 
Belf,  paying  a  yearly  rent  to  the  sanctuary;  in 
such  a  case  the  ba--is  of  sale  would  be  the  pos- 
sible surplus  of  the  produce  above  the  yearly 
rental,  and  the  fault  of  the  seller  "  consisted  simply 
in  Ihe  fact  that  he  had  looked  upon  the  land 
which  he  vowed  to  the  Lord  as  though  it  were 
his  own  property,  still  and  entirely  at  his  own 
disposal,  and  therefore  had  allowed  himself  to 
violate  the  rights  of  the  Lord  by  the  sale  of  his 
land."  Wordsworth,  following  Jarchi,  suggests 
another  interpretation;  that  the  pronoun  he  is 
used  impersonally,  and  the  expression  means,  if 
the  field  had  been  sold  by  the  treasurer  for  the 
benefit  of  the  sanctuary.  The  object  would  then 
be  to  make  the  title  given  by  the  sanctuary  in 
all  cases  perfect.  A  simpler  explanation  is  to 
understand  have  sold  in  a  pluperfect  sense= 
had  sold — viz.:  before  making  his  vow.  In  this 
case  he  would  have  no  claim  upon  it  until  after 
the  Jubilee  (except  by  redemption),  and  there- 
fore his  vow  could  only  be  accomplished  by  the 
land  falling  to  the  sanctuary  at  the  Jubilee. 
The  reason  for  the  same  result  in  case  of  refusal 
to  redeem  is  apparently  based  upon  the  persist- 
ent wish  of  the  owner.     He  might  redeem  at  any 


time  up  to  the  Jubilee;  and  if  he  did  not,  he 
showed  that  he  wished  absolutely  to  give  the 
field  to  the  Lord.  It  does  not  appear  that  the 
lauded  possessions  of  the  sanctuary  ever  grew 
large  in  this  way. — F.  G.].  "4.  Purchased  pos- 
sessions. Since  these  must  fall  back  in  the  Ju- 
bilee year  to  the  heir,  they  could  only  become 
the  subject  of  vows  in  a  very  limited  sense." 
The  vow  of  a  purchased  field  required  (ver.  23) 
the  immediate  payment  of  its  full  valu3  (without 
addition)  to  the  year  of  Jubilee.  In  this  case 
the  actual  occupation  and  usufruct  of  the  land 
undoubtedly  remained  with  the  one  who  had 
made  the  vow,  subject  to  the  ordinary  law  of  re- 
demption (xxv.  23-28).  The  requirement  here 
of  immediate  payment  does  not  imply  that  in  the 
former  case  (ver.  19)  the  payment  was  annual 
(so  Keil,  Clark,  and  others),  but  only  that  here 
the  money  must  be  immediately  paid  down  as 
the  only  security  for  its  payment  at  all. 

Ver.  25  simply  provides  that  the  standard  of 
all  valuations  must  be  the  shekel  of  the 
sanctuary — a  silver  coin  estimated  at  51  cents. 
It  was  divided  into  20  gerahs  of  2.7  cts.  each.  The 
LXX.  uses  the  word  6i5paxua,  which  is  employed 
in  Matt.  xvii.  24  for  the  Aa//-shekel,  the  Alexan- 
drian dpaxu'/  being  double  the  Attic. 

Vers.  26,  27.  The  positive  law  concerning 
vows  is  now  completed.  It  remains  to  treat  ne- 
gatively of  certain  things  which  were  not  al- 
lowed to  become  the  subject  of  vows.  First,  all 
the  first-born  of  animals  are  excluded  as  already 
belonging  to  the  Lord,  and  therefore  incapable 
of  being  given  to  Him  either  by  vow  or  in  any 
other  way :  no  man  shall  sanctify  it.  A 
firstling  of  an  unclean  beast,  however,  might 
be  redeemed  by  adding  a  fifth  to  its  valuation — 
otherwise  it  was  to  be  sold  for  the  benefit  of  the 
sanc'uary.  The  reason  for  its  peremptory  sale 
in  this  case,  instead  of  its  retention  for  use,  was 
doubtless  the  tender  age  of  the  firstlings,  so  that 
if  they  were  retained  they  must  have  occupied 
much  time  and  care.  Lange:  "Keil  remarks 
'By  this  regulation  the  earlier  law,  which  com- 
manded that  an  ass  should  either  be  redeemed 
with  a  sheep  or  else  be  put  to  death  (Ex.  xiii. 
13  ;  xxxiv.  20)  was  modified  in  favor  of  the  re- 
venues of  the  sanctuary  and  its  servants.' 
Comp.  Winer,  etc.  We  cannot  consider  this  cor- 
rect. Concerning  the  first-born  of  an  unclean 
beast,  the  law  was  peremptory.  And  how  should 
the  law-giver  here  come  back  once  more  to  the 
unclean  beast?  Nevertheless,  a  special  ordi- 
nance concerning  the  first-born  might  certainly 
be  met  with  which  had  dropped  out  through  a 
defect  under  the  law  of  unclean  animals." 
Keil,  Clark  and  others  must  have  overlooked  the 
fact  that  the  law  of  Exodus  is  only  a  special  law 
concerning  the  o<s,  but  making  no  mention  of 
other  unclean  animals ;  while  here  the  law  is  a 
general  one  which,  as  often  in  general  laws,  does 
not  mention  the  already  known  and  established 
exception.  It  had  been  but  a  ypar  since  the  law 
for  the  ass  was  first  given  in  Exodus,  and  less 
than  this  since  its  repetition  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  20. 
The  time  is  too  short,  therefore,  for  the  reason 
given  by  Keil  and  Clark  for  its  modification. 

Vers.  28,  29.  From  redeemable  vows  is  also 
to  be  excepted  every  devoted  thing,  whether 
of  man,  or  beast,  or  land.     This  is  the  first  in- 


CHAP.  XXVII.  1-34. 


205 


stance  of  the  use  of  the  word  D^.n,  and  it  occurs 
afterwards  in  the  law  but  seldom  (Num.  xviii. 
14;  Deut.  vii.  26,  bis ;  xiii.  17).  It  is  introduced 
as  a  term  already  familiar.  It  is  translated  by 
various  words  in  the  A.  V.  (as  curse,  accursed, 
dedicated,  devoted,  appointed  to  utter  destruction, 
etc.),  but  etymologically  and  by  usage  always 
means  irrevocably  cut  off  from  all  common  use — 
in  the  case  of  persons,  devoted  to  destruction — in 
the  case  of  things  entirely  surrendered  to  the 
Lord  to  be  disposed  of  at  His  will.  "What 
was  devoted  could  never  be  offered  in  sacri- 
fice; but  in  all  places  where  mention  is  else- 
where made  of  the  ban  laid  on  any  thing  (Num. 
xviii.  14;  xxxi.  ;  Deut.  ii.  34;  xiii.  12-18;  xxv. 
19;  Josh.  vi.  17-19;  Mai.  iv.  6)  this  appears  as 
a  dedication  to  destruction,  as  a  fulfilling  of  the 
Divine  vengeance,  as  an  honoring  of  God  on 
those  in  whom  He  cannot  show  Himself  holy  and 
glorious."  Von  Gerlach.  In  regard  to  inani- 
mate objects  the  meaning  is  therefore  clear 
enough  ;  but  the  expression  which  shall  be 
devoted  of  men  (ver.  29)  has  been  the  occa- 
sion of  some  diCBculty.  This  much  is  certainly 
plain:  that  the  sentence  of  cherem  once  pro- 
nounced was  absolutely  irrevocable,  and  in  1 
Sam.  xv.  21,  33,  we  have  an  instance  of  the  pro- 
phet's indignant  rebuke  of  the  attempt  to  set  it 
aside.  Beyond  this,  the  only  instances  of  the 
cherem  in  Scripture  are  those  which  rested  upon 
an  express  Diviue  command.  Jephthah's  vow 
does  not  come  under  this  category  at  all,  for  that 
was  a  vow  either  to  offer  a  burnt  offering,  or  to 
devote  to  the  Lord  ;  but  the  cherem  is  not  treated 
as  a  vow  at  all,  and  is  separated  from  ordinary 
vows  by  being  irredeemable.  The  general  sense 
of  the  passage,  historically  interpreted,  is  there- 
fore that  man  may  not  interfere  to  thwart  the 
purpose  of  the  Almighty  :  Jehovah's  sentence  of 
destruction  must  always  be  unflinchingly  carried 
out.  Ver.  28,  however,  clearly  asserts  that  an 
individual  man  might  devote  persons  belonging 
to  him  in  the  same  way  that  lie  could  his  ani- 
mals or  fields,  while  ver.  29  requires  that  any 
one  so  devoted  must  be  put  to  death.  The  mean- 
ing of  this  very  mysterious  provision  must  be 
gathered  from  the  historical  instances  of  the  che- 
rem. It  could  have  applied  only  to  the  devoting 
of  those  who  were  already  manifestly  under  the 
ban  of  Jehovah— those  guilty  of  such  outrageous 
and  flagrant  violation  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  covenant  that  they  manifestly  came  under 
the  penalty  of  death.  Such  persons,  instead  of 
being  tried  and  condemned,  might  be  at  once 
devoted  and  put  to  death.  Lange's  exegesis 
is  as  follows:  "  That  which  had  been  placed  un- 
der the  ban  was  absolutely  irredeemable.  No  ob- 
ject was  banned,  however,  or  consecrated  to  Je- 
hovah by  an  irrevocable  reversion  (for  the  use 
of  the  Sanctuary  in  the  case  of  impersonal  things, 
or  for  death  instead  of  capital  punishment  in  the 
case  of  persons)  through  any  private  will ;  only 
Jehovah,  or  the  community  in  His  service,  exe- 
cuted the  ban.  The  various  particulars  of  the 
ban  are  explained  by  Knobel,  p.  588."  See  also 
Selden  de  Jure  Gent.  IV.,  vi.-xi.;  Waterland 
Scripture  vindicated,  Works  IV.,  p.  226-229. 

Vers.  30—33.  Tithes  also  are  to  be  excluded 
from  the  possible  subjects  of  vows,  since  they 
already  belonged  to  the  Lord;  in  certain  cases, 


however,  they  might  be  redeemed  like  vows. 
The  tithe,  like  the  thing  devoted,  is  referred  to 
as  something  already  familiar.  From  Abra- 
ham's tithe  to  Melchizedec  (Gen.  xiv.  20)  and 
Jacob's  vow  (Gen.  xxviii.  22),  and  probably  from 
still  far  earlier  times,  it  had  been  immemorially 
an  essential  part  of  the  worship  of  God.  The 
tithe  is  here  spoken  of,  therefore,  not  for  the 
purpose  of  enjoining  it,  but  to  exclude  it  from 
vows,  and  to  prescribe  how  far  and  under  what 
conditions,  like  vows,  it  might  be  redeemed.  In 
Num.  xviii.  20-32;  Deut.  xii.  6,  11  ;  xiv.  22,  di- 
rections are  given  as  to  the  use  and  the  collec- 
tion of  the  tithes.  "According  to  Kabbinical 
tradition,  the  animals  to  be  tithed  were  enclosed 
in  a  pen,  and  as  they  went  out,  one  by  one  at 
the  opening,  every  tenth  animal  was  touched 
with  a  rod  dipped  in  vermilion.  Comp.  Jerem. 
xxxiii.  13;  Ezek.  xx.  37."  Clark.  The  tithe  was 
applied,  of  course,  only  to  the  increase  of  the 
flock  and  the  herd,  i.  e.,  to  animals  which  had 
never  been  tithed  before.  Lange  :  "  It  must  not 
be  overlooked  that  the  tithes  were  a  ground-rent 
in  favor  of  the  hierarchy,  primarily  of  the  Le- 
vites,  who  again  must  themselves  pay  tithes  to 
the  priest;  and  were  also  a  perpetual  theocratic 
civil  tax  which  could  not  properly  be  maintained 
in  Christian  times  by  the  side  of  other  taxes, 
notwithstanding  the  strong  Old  Testament  dispo- 
sition of  the  middle  ages  in  this  matter.  It  is 
easy  to  see  that  at  the  present  day,  by  the  side 
of  the  modern  forms  of  voluntary  and  involun- 
tary taxes,  ecclesiastical  and  secular,  tithes  can 
only  be  claimed  by  an  overstrained  literal  zeal." 
The  law  (32,  33)  absolutely  forbade  the  redemp- 
tion or  exchange  of  the  tithe  of  sacrificial  ani- 
mals, as  in  case  of  a  vow  ;  other  tithes  were  also 
under  the  same  law  as  the  vow,  and  might  be 
redeemed  by  the  payment  of  their  value  with  one- 
fifth  in  addition. 

Ver.  34  closes  this  appendix,  and  forms,  as  it 
were,  a  second  close  to  the  whole  book  of  Levi- 
ticus, the  aim  and  object  of  which  has  been  holi- 
ness— holiness  to  be  typically  acquired  by  the 
sacrificial  system  prescribed  to  point  to  "  the 
Lord  our  righteousness  ;"  and  to  be  preserved  by 
those  many  legal  enactments  superadded  to  the 
great  law  of  faith,  "  because  of  transgressions, 
until  the  promised  seed  should  come." 


DOCTRINAL   AND   ETHICAL. 

I.  In  the  law  for  the  redemption  of  personal 
vows  is  again  brought  out  very  strongly  the 
equality  of  all  men  before  God.  Differences  were 
made  according  to  sex  and  age,  but  none  accord- 
ing to  social  position  and  rank.  The  redemption 
for  the  high-priest  himself  was  precisely  the 
same  as  for  the  day-laborer. 

II.  In  the  prohibition  of  vows  of  the  first-born, 
of  tithes,  etc.,  which  already  belonged  to  the 
Lord,  the  general  principle  is  taught  that  man 
may  not  make  that  a  matter  of  extraordinary 
piety  which  already  forms  a  part  of  his  ordinary 
duly.  In  a  sense  this  would  absolutely  exclude 
all  vows,  since  the  Christian  requirement  is  that 
we  should  devote  ourselves  with  all  that  we  have 
to  Him  who  gave  Himself  for  us,  and  indeed  ihe 
highest  standard  of  the  Christian  life,  making 


206 


LEVITICUS. 


of  that  life  itself  one  perpetual  vow,  necessarily 
supercedes  all  minor  vows ;  but  nevertheless 
practically,  special  dedications  of  ourselves  and 
ours  may  be  made,  and  when  made  are  to  be  sa- 
credly kept.    See  Eccl.  v.  4,  5. 

III.  Here  as  elsewhere  Moses  is  made  only 
the  channel  and  instrument  by  whom  the  laws 
are  given  ;  their  authorship  is  expressly  referred 
to  the  Lord  Himself.  Accepting  this  as  a  truth, 
the  wonderful  character  of  this  legislation  occa- 
sions no  difficuliy  ;  but  if  with  the  negative  cri- 
tics, it  be  denied  and  the  legislation  be  referred 
to  human  authorship,  we  have  in  this  book  the 
impossible  phenomenon  of  a  legislation  wholly 
occupied  with  the  promotion  of  holiness,  and 
yet  stamped  with  fraud  and  deliberate  forgery 
upon  its  very  front.  We  have  also  a  legislation 
far  superior  to  that  of  any  nation  of  antiquity, 
and  indeed  morally  superior  to  any  that  has 
ever  existed  except  under  the  influence  of  Chris- 
tianity, proceeding  from  a  people  whose  history 
shows  them  to  have  been  unfitted  for  the  concep- 
tion, much  more  the  enactment  of  even  a  very 
inferior  code. 

HOMILETICAL  AND   PRACTICAL. 

Lange :  "  The  religious  observance  of  vows. 
Before  all  things  man  must  not  be  willing  to 
cheat  Jehovah;  also  he  must  be  thoroughly  ho- 
nest and  true  in  his  vows,  his  professions,  his 
fasts,  his  devotion,  and  his  religious  duties  gen- 
erally." 

Also  under  exegetical :    "  The  importance  of 


these  prescriptions  is  that  tbey  oppose  all  un- 
manliness  in  relation  to  a  pledged  word,  confir- 
mation vows,  marriage  vows,  ordination  vows, 
false  discharge  of  fasting  that  has  been  vowed 
by  fish-eating  and  the  like;  the  removal  of  all 
evasions  of  criminal  justice  and  of  churchly  dis- 
cipline, and  finally,  of  all  frauds  in  regard  to 
the  duties  which  one  owes  to  the  cultus  and  to 
the  religious  rights  of  the  community.  The  or- 
dinance concerning  the  irremissibility  of  various 
actions  shows  clearly  that  there  can  be  a  true 
freedom  within  this  obligation.  The  sanctifica- 
tion  of  manliness — thus  might  the  whole  section 
be  entitled." 

Also  under  the  same :  "  It  is  an  old  story  that 
worldliness,  cunning,  and  impiety,  very  willingly 
put  obstructions  in  the  way  of  religious,  theo- 
cratic, and  ecclesiastical  discharge  of  duty,  and 
the  complaints  of  the  Old  Testament  of  the  want 
of  manliness  in  this  matter,  which  was  connected 
with  dimness  of  faith  in  the  Omniscient,  have 
been  continually  repeated  even  to  the  present. 
But  here  Jehovah,  who  deals  faithfully  and  re- 
liably with  His  holy  people,  approaches  with  the 
demand  in  regard  to  them,  that  they  should  hold 
themselves  holy,  and  faithful,  and  trustworthy 
in  all  their  business  in  regard  to  Him.  If  moral 
laxity  begins  first  in  concealments  in  relation  to 
God  and  His  institutions,  it  will  diffuse  itself 
more  widely  until  it  completes  its  process  of  dis- 
solution in  religious  and  moral  deceptions,  espe- 
cially in  the  province  of  all  religious  and  moral 
vows." 


THE    EInTXJ. 


GEORGE    SMITH'S    NEW    STANDARD    WORKS. 


^Ijf  djljfllbFfln  JSufronnf  of  (Jpnpsis. 

CONTAINING  THE  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  CREATION,  THE  FALL  OF  MAN,  THE   DELUGE, 
THE  TOWER  OF  BABEL,  THE  TIMES  OF  THE  PATRIARCHS.  AND  NIMROD  :  BABYLONIAN 
FABLES.  AND   LEGENDS  OF  THE  GODS  FROM  THE  CUNEIFORM   INSCRIPTIONS. 
By    GEORGE     SMITH, 

Of  the  Department  of  Oriental  Antiquities.  British  Museum,  Author  of  "  History  of  AssurbanifHil" 

.  riatt     Discoz'eries"    Etc. 

Willi    iiuim  rous   Illustrations.     1  vol.,  Sro $4.00. 

Mr.  Smith's  first  volume,  Assyrian  Disccn-eries,  attracted  wide  attention  from  all  Biblical  student-,  bw  ause 
of  the  important  bearing  of  the  discoveries  it  recorded  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  narrative  of  ihe  creation,  .is 
rehearsed  in  Genesis.  Here  Mr.  Smith  summarizes  the  results  of  still  later  and  more  comprehensive  rcs^rches. 
The  inscriptions  which  he  has  deciphered  cover  a  wide  range  of  subjects,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  title  of  the 
volume,  and  are  of  the  most  marked  significance  and  of  the  highest  importance. 

FROM    THE     ENGLISH     REVIEWS. 

"A  step,  the  importance  of  which  cannot  be  overlooked,  has  been  made  in  a  study  which  has  a  rejig 
well  as  a  literary  value." — Times. 

"The  work   Mr.  Smith  has  here  given  us  is  the  most  interesting  and   the  fullest  we  have  yet  had  from  his 

pen In   concluding  these  remarks,  we  heartily  commend   Mr.  Smith's  work  to  the  attention  of  every  one  who, 

.iccepling  the  general  course  of  Biblical  story,  would  wish  t<>  learn  all  that  can  be  at  present  told  of  the  collateral, 
though  not  contemporaneous,  history  of  Chaldea  and  Babylonia." — Atkenetum. 

"  Probably  no  single  volume  of  its  kind  was  ever  published  that  contained  more  singular  and  deeply  interesting 
matter." — Nonconformist. 


A  NEW   EDITION   NOW   READY  OF 

j&ussgriflii   UlisrofiFriFS. 

An  Account  of  Explorations  and  Discoveries  on  the  Site   of  Nineveh   during 

1873  and  1874. 

Bv    GEORGE    SMITH, 

Of  the  Department   of  Oriental  Antiquities,  British  Museum. 

With   Maps,  Wood-Cuts,   and   Photographs.        One   vol.,   8vo,   cloth,   S4.0U. 


OPINIONS     OF    THE     PRESS. 
From    the   N.    Y,   Daily    Tribune. 
"Mr.  Smith  appears  to  have  engaged  in  his  work  with  equal  ardor,  perseverance,  and  good  judgment.     His 
habits  as  a  scholar  have  not  impaired  his  efficiency  as  a  practical  man.     The  recital  of  his  experience  is  marked  by 
frankness,  modesty,  and  great  intelligence." 

From    the   St.   Louis   Demoerat. 

'"The  book  reveals  much  of  the  hitherto  hidden  history  of  the  Assyrian  empire,  and  shows  that  its  people  were 
wise  in  many  things.  The  maxims  translated  from  the  records,  and  the  curious  devices  and  pictures  brought  to 
the  earth's  surface,  give  us  a  clearer  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  people  that  inhabited  that  nation  than  we 
have  gained  from  any  other  source.  *  *  *  It  is  a  work  of  great  importance,  and  will  be  welcomed  by  all 
scholars  and  antiquaries." 

From  the  N.   Y.  Evening  Post. 

"Mr.  Smith's  book  is  in  clearness  and  accuracy  all  that  could  be  wished;  himself  a  great  authority  on 
Assyrian  antiquities,  he  has  prepared  a  work  which  no  person  who  has  *tudied  or  intends  to  study  this  fascinating 
subject  should  fail  to  read.'1 

From   the    Cincinnati    Commercial. 

"  It  is  in  the  hope  that  these  rich,  first  fruits  of  investigation  will  stimulate  inquiry,  and  induce  the  British 
Government  to  take  hold  of  the  matter,  and  bring  its  influence  to  bear  in  such  a  manner  upon  the  Ottoman 
Government  as  to  secure  its  cooperation  in  prosecuting  a  thorough  system  of  investigation,  that  we  close  Mr. 
Smith's  absorbingly  interesting  book."' 

From  the   Watchman  and  Reflector, 

"His  book  is  a  simple,  straightforward  record  of  what  he  accomplished,  written  not  to  catch  the  applause  of 
the  ignorant,  but  to  inform  the  wise  and  the  thoughtful.  The  narrative  o(  personal  experience  is  interesting,  with- 
out trace  of  straining  for  sensational  effect.  But  the  chief  value  of  the  work  is  for  its  account  of  things  accom- 
plished." 

Eithe  ■  of  the  above  will  be  sent,  prepaid \  upon  receipt  of  price,  by 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSTRONG  &  CO., 

743  &  745  Broadway   New  York. 


Lange's  Commentary, 

Critical,  Doctrinal,  and  Homiletical. 

TRANSLATED,    ENLARGED,    AND    EDITED 


■BY- 


PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.  D., 

Professor  in  the   Union  -theological  Seminary,  Neu;  Tork. 


This  great  work  is  rapidly  approaching  completion.  The  New  Testament  Part 
is  finished.     The  Old  Testament  Part  is  more  than  half  done. 

The  German  work,  on  which  the  English  edition  is  based,  is  the  product  ol 
about  twenty  distinguished  Biblical  scholars,  of  Germany,  Holland,  and  Switzerland, 
and  enjoys  a  high  reputation  and  popularity  wherever  German  theology  is  studied. 

The  American  edition  is  not  a  mere  translation  (although  embracing  the  whole 
of  the  German),  but  to  a  large  extent,  an  original  work  ;  about  one-third  of  the 
matter  being  added,  and  the  whole  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  English  and  Ameri- 
can student. 

The  press  has  been  almost  unanimous  in  its  commendation  of  Lange's  Com- 
mentary.  It  is  generally  regarded  as  being,  on  the  whole,  the  most  useful  Commen- 
tary, especially  for  ministers  and  theological  students — in  which  they  are  more  likely 
to  find  what  they  desire  than  in  any  other.  It  is  a  complete  treasure  of  Biblical 
Icnowledge,  brought  down  to  the  latest  date.  It  gives  the  results  of  careful,  scholarly 
research  ;  yet  in  a  form  sufficiently  popular  for  the  use  of  intelligent  laymen.  The 
Homiletical  department  contains  the  best  thoughts  of  the  great  divines  and  pulpit 
orators  of  all  ages  on  the  texts  explained,  and  supplies  rich  suggestions  for  sermons 
-md  Bible  lectures. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  chief  merits  of  this  Commentary  : 

1.  It  is  orthodox  and  sound,  without  being  sectarian  or  denominational.  It 
fairly  represents  the  exegetical  and  doctrinal  consensus  of  evangelical  divines  of  the 
[■resent  age,  and  yet  ignores  none  of  the  just  claims  of  liberal  scientific  criticism. 

2.  It  is  comprehensive  and  complete — giving  in  beautiful  order  the  authorized 
Knglish  version  with  emendations,  a  digest  of  the  Critical  Apparatus,  Exegetical 
Kxplanations,  Doctrinal  and  Ethical  Inferences  and  Reflections,  and  Homiletical 
ind  Practical  Hints  and  Applications. 

3  It  is  the  product  of  about  forty  American  (and  a  few  British)  Biblical 
Scholars,  from  all  the  leading  denominations  and  Theological  and  Literary  institutions 
of  the  United  States.  Professors  in  the  Theological  Seminaries  of  New  York, 
Princeton,  Andover,  New  Haven,  Hartford,  Cambridge,  Rochester,  Philadelphia, 
Cincinnati,  Alleghany,  Chicago,  Madison,  and  other  places,  representing  the  Pres- 
tyterian,  Episcopal,  Congregational,  Baptist,  Methodist,  Lutheran,  and  Reformed 
Churches,  have  contributed  or  are  engaged  now  in  contributing  to  this  Commentary. 
It  may,  therefore,  claim  a  national  character  more  than  any  other  work  of  the  kind 
?>er  publisher  1  in  this  country. 

V»r  Name*  of  Contributor*,   Folumtt  iitued,  etc.,  «e«  Mart  J»f*> 


LIST    OF    AMERICAN    CONTRIBUTORS    10 

LANGE'S    COMMENTARY. 

Prof    PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.  D.,    general  EDITOR,   Union  Theo'l  Sem'y,  N.  Y 

Prof.  CHARLES   A.  AIKEN.  D.  D.,.    Presbyterian,. .  .Theo'l  Seminary,  Princeton,  N.J 

Rev.  S.    R.    ASBURY, Episcopalian, Moorestown,  N.  J 

Prof.   GEORGE   BLISS.   D.   D., Baptist Lewisburg  University,  Fa 

Rev.   CHARLES   A.  BRIGGS Presbyterian Roselle,   N.  J 

Prof.  JOHN   A.    BROADUS,  D.   D.,. .  Bapt.,. ..  Greenville  Theo'l  Sem'v,  South  Carolina 

Rev.    T .  W.   CHAMBERS,   D.  D Reformed New  York. 

Rev.   THOS.  C.  CON  A  NT,   D.  D Baptist Brooklyn,   L.  I 

Rev.   E.   R.   CRAVEN,   D.  D Presbyterian Newark,  N.J. 

Prof    GEORGE   E.   DAY,   D.  D., Congregational Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Ct. 

Prof.   CHAS.  ELLIOTT,   D.  D., Presb., N.  W.  Theo'l  Sem'y,  Chicago,  Ills. 

Prof.   L    J.   EVANS,   D.  D., Presb Lane  Theo'l  Seminary,  Cincinnati,  O. 

Prof.  PATRICK  FAIRBAIRN,  D.  D.,.Presb Prin.   Free  College,  Glasgow,  Scotland 

Prof.  JOHN   FORSYTH,  D.  D Reformed,  Chapl'n  Mil'y  Acad.,  West  Point,  N.Y. 

Prof.   FRED.   GARDINER,    D.  D.,...Epis Berkeley  Divinity  School,  Middletown,  Ct. 

Rev.  A.  GOSMAN,  D.  D Presbyterian, Lawrenceville,   N.J. 

Prof.  W.   H.  GREEN,   D.  D Presbyterian,.  ..Theo'l  Seminary,  Princeton,  N.  J. 

Prof.   H.   B.   HACKETT,  D.  D Baptist Rochester  University,  N.  Y. 

Rev.  E.    HARWOOD,   D.  D Episcopal New  Haven,  Ct. 

Prof.  W.  H.  HORNBLOWER.  D.  D.,  Presbyterian Theo'l  Sem'y,  Alleghany,  Pa. 

Prof.  J.  F.  HURST,  D.  D., Methodist Drew  Theo'l  Sem'y,  Madison,  N.  J. 

Prof.  A.   C.   KENDRICK,  D.  D„ Baptist Rochester  University,  N.  Y. 

Rev.  JOHN   LILLIE,  D.  D Presbyterian (Deceased.} 

Rev.  J.   FRED.  McCURDY, Presbyterian, Princeton,  N.J. 

Prof.   C.   M.   MEAD,  D.  D., Congregational Theo'l  Sem'y  Andover,  Mass. 

Rev.  J.  ISIDOR  MOMBERT,  D.  D,  Episcopal, Dresden,  Germany. 

Miss   EVELINE   MOORE Presbyterian Newark,  N.J. 

Prof.    MURPHY,  D.D Presbyterian,.  ..Queen's  College,  Belfast,  Ireland. 

Prof.  J.    PACKARD,  D.D., Episcopal Theo'l  Sem'y,  Alexandria,  Va. 

Prof.   D.   W.   POOR,  D.   D Presbyterian, San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Prof.   M.   B.    RIDDLE,  D.  D., Reformed,...   Theological  Seminary,  Hartford,  Ct. 

Prof.   CH.   F.   SCHAEFFER,  D.  D.,..Luth., Lutheran  Seminary,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Prof.   W.  G.   T.   SHEDD,  D.  D., Presbyterian Union  Theo'l  Sem'y,  New  York. 

Rev.   C.  C.    STARBUCK Congregational, Berea  College   Ky. 

Prof.    P.    H.   STEENSTRA Episcopal, Divinity  School,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

Prof.  CALVIN   E.   STOWE,  D.  D.,.  .Congregational, formerly  of  Andover,  Mass. 

Prof.  J  AS.   STRONG,   D.  D Methodist, Drew  Seminary,  Madison,  N.  J. 

Prof.    W.    G.   SUMNER Episcopal, Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Ct. 

Prof.  TAYLER   LEWIS,  LL.D., Reformed, Union  College,  Schenectady,  N.  Y. 

Prof.   C.    H.   TOY,  D.D. Baptist, Greenville  Sem'y.  South  Carolina. 

Rev.   E.   A.   WASHBURN,  D.  D., Episcopal, Rector  Calvary  Church,  New  York. 

Prof.   WILLIAM    WELLS Methodist, Union  College,  Schenectady,  N.  Y. 

Rev.   C    P.  WING,  D.  D., Presbyterian, Carlisle,   Pa. 

Rev.  E.  D.  YEOMANS,  D.  D., Presbyterian, (Deceased.) 

There  have  been  thus  far  issued  of  LANGE'S  COMMENTARY,  NINE  Volumes  on  the  Old 
Testament,  and  TEN  on  the  New  Testament,  as  follows : 

OLD  TESTAMENT  VOLUMES. 


I.  Genesis. 
II.  Exodus  and  Leviticus. 

III.  Joshua,  Judges,  and  Ruth. 

IV.  Acts. 
V.  Job. 


VI.  Psalms. 
VII.  Proverbs,  Song  of  Solomon,  Ecclesi- 

astes. 
VIII.  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations. 
IX.  The  Minor  Prophets. 


In  preparation.— Numbers  and  Deuteronomy  ( I  vol.):  I.  and  II.  Samuel  (i  vol.):    Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and 
Esther  ft  vol.)  ;   Isaiah  (i  vol.);  Kzckiel  and  Daniel  (i  vol.). 

NEW  TESTAMENT  VOLUMES. 

VII.  Galatians,    Ephesians,    Philippians, 
and  Colossians. 
VIII.  Thessalonians,  Timothy, Titus,  Phil- 
emon.  Hebrews. 
IX.  James.  Peter,  John,  and  T'7de. 
X.  Revelation.    With  an  Index  to  New 
Testament  Vols. 

It  ivill  be  observed  that  the  AVro  Testament  portion  is  complete. 

2a:h  one  to!.  8vo.     Price  per  vol.  in  half  calf,  $7.50  ;  in  Sh.3ep,  $5.50  ;  in  Cloth,  $5.00. 
An.    ■:    all  the  volumes  of  Lange's  Commentary  sent,  post  or  express  charges  paid,  to  any 
re   :ipt  of  the  price. 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSTRONG  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK. 


I. 

Matthew. 

II. 

Mark  and  Luke. 

III. 

John. 

IV. 

Acts. 

V. 

Romans. 

VI. 

Corinthians. 

JST-A-T^ID^JFLID    WORKS 

PUBLISHED    BY 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSTRONG  &  CO. 
HISTORY  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 

By    GEORGE  P.  FISHER.   D.D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical   History  in   Yale  College,  author  of  "  I"he  Su- 
pernatural Origin  uf  Christianity,"  &c.      One  vol.  8vo,  cloth $3  00 

This  is  a  concise  but  complete  History  of  the  Reformation,  as  a  whole,  and  in  all  the  countries  to  which  it 
extended,  embracing  a  full  account  of  its  causes,  events,  characters,  and  consequences.  It  is  lucid  and  grapi  it 
In  style,  and,  as  Professor  Fisher  has  made  the  Reformation  the  study  of  his  life,  the  work  displays  throughout- 
a  thoroughness  uf  research  which  must  make  it  a  standard  authority  upon  the  important  movement  to  the  hwor* 
of  whirh  it  is  devoted. 

JOWETT'S  DIALOGUES  OF  PLATO. 

Four  «  .*..   crown  Bvo    cloth,  per  set,  cheaper   edition SB  00 

This  work,  by  Prof.  Jowett,  is  one  of  the  most  splendid  and  valuable  gifts  to  Literature  and  Philosophy  ihar 
have  for  a  long  time  been  offered.  Its  first  or  most  obvious  excellence  is  the  perfect  ease  and  grace  of  the  t-;ms- 
La:ion,  wmch  is  thoroughly  English,  and  yet  entirely  exempt  from  any  phrase  or  feature  at  variance  with  rhe 
Hellenic  character.  Very  few  translations,  other  than  the  Bible,  read  like  an  original ;  but  this  is  one  of  them.  I  I 
has  other  and  more  recondite  excellences.  It  is  the  work,  almost  the  life-labor,  we  believe,  of  a  profound  sch  .lar, 
a  thoughtful  moralist  and  metaphysician,  and  a  most  successful  instructor  of  youth;  and  it  is  manifest  thai  the 
complete  success  that  has  attended  his  execution  of  the  task  is  itself  the  means  of  concealing  the  diligenre.  in-lu-iry, 
and  ability  with  which  philological  and  interpretative  difficulties  must  have  been  solved  or  overcome.— Blue  A  wo'-i'  i 
Magazine,  

FROUDE'S  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND. 

Complete  in   Twelve   Volumes^    Croivn  Octavo. 

THE  CHELSEA   EDITION.     Half  roan,  gilt  top,  per  set $21  0C- 

THE  POPULAR   EDITION.     Twelve  vols.,  cloth 15  0<" 

"The  style  is  excellent:  sound,  honest,  forcible,  singularly  perspicuous  English;  at  times,  with  a  sort  of  pictur- 
esque   simplicity,  pictures  dashed    off"  with  only  a   few  touches,  but  perfectly  alive We   have  never  read 

a  passage  twice We  see    the  course  of  events   day  by  day,  not  only  of  the  more  serious  and"  important 

communications,  but   the    gossip  of  the   hour If  truth    and  vivid    reality    be    the    perfection   of  history, 

auch  is  to  be  said  in  favor  of  this  muae  of  composition." — London  Quarterly. 

FROUDE'S    HISTORY  OF  IRELAND. 

THREE  VOLUMES   NOW   READY.     On  tinted  paper,  cloth V  *> 

FROUDE'S   SHORT   STUDIES. 

FIRST  AXD  .SHCOXI)  SKKIHS. 

POPULAR   EDITION.      Two  vols.,  doth J3  Oft 

CHELSEA    EDITION.     Two  vols.,  half  Ruxunri;.  Kill  to|i.    *   On 


MOMMSEN'S  HISTORY  OF  ROME. 

REPRINTED   FROM   THE   REVISED   LONDON   EDITION.     Four  vols,  crown  8vo.      Per  set «8  00 

"A  work  of  the  very  highest  merit;  its  learning  is  exact  and  profound;  us  nanative  full  of  genius  and  skill. 
Its  descriptions  of  men  arc  admirably  vivid.  We  wish  to  place  or.  record  our  opinion  that  Dr.  Momnisen's  is  b> 
Ear  the  best  history  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Commonwealth." — London  Times. 


CURTIUS'  HISTORY  OF  GREECE. 

Printed  upon  Tinted  Paper,  uniform  with    Mommsen's    History  op  Rome,  and    the   Library  Edition  of 

FruL'UE'S    HlSTOKV    UK    ENGLAND. 

Five  volumes  crown  Svo,  per  vol $2.30 

'*  Prote»sor  Curtius'  eminent  scholarship  is  a  sufficient  guarantee  for  the  trustworthiness  of  his  history,  while 
the  skill  with  which  he  groups  his  facts,  and  his  effective  mode  of  narrating  them,  combine  to  render  it  nu  le^s  re.id 
able  than  sound.  Professor  Curtius  everywhere  maintains  the  true  digi.ity  and  impartiality  of  history,  an.,  it  i» 
tvident  his  sympathies  are  on  the  side  of  justice,   humanity,  and  progress." — London  Athetueum. 

"We  can  not  express  our  opinion  of  Dr.  Curtius'  book  better  than  by  >aying  lhat  it  may  be  fitly  ranked  with  I'IicjcIo* 
Mommsen's  gTeat  work." — London  Spectator. 

Hm  &•©*»  tent  post-paid^  upon  receipt  of the price,  by  the  publislwr*. 

SCRIBNER,  ARMSfRONG  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK. 


DATE  DUE 

MH»  ■»«*"*»' 

f 

*e*44g 

Bn* 

GAYLORD 

PRINTEDIN  U.S.A. 

1B4B2YH  1077  J 

07-10-03  32180      MC    W 


Princeton 


